HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.View Preservation Exhibits 1971, 1973 2
WARD !I SMUT:
in Ward K South at our last neighborhood meeting on September 24,
we agreed , in order to get a general sense of platform, to confine
Otx discussion to certain issues and goals presented at the previous
meeting and to the specific points made by Dr . Harvey. Discussion of
ends often led inevitably to discussion of means , but , nevertheless ,
agreement was reacted on many points of common concern. All of our points
Of discussion revealed a shared sense of the urgent need for an Overview
and a renewed public assess.;Oni Of une forces and the policies and
he P O"Onali ies which are now shaping this mountain environment .
indeed , every Opinion OxP205sOt by paizic pan s in the discussion was
in some Way relevant Or representative.ve. Out of the need for brevity ,
this report sacrifices some accuracy as to the range of opinion
but reflects in a general way each Of the opinions which were
instrumei"al in our reaching a wood of shred concern.
We should life the ca dig te:s for mayor and city council in
the coming election to address themselves to the problems and some
Of the solutions which we Sham now outline .
Our first and most important senti: ent is that a general plan
for ue Val vas° . g Fork it �i..y should be forthcoming. in particular ,
is suggested that the plan mighz best be carried out by a
metropolitan an gove °nment incorporating both city and county, or , if
that is not possible, at least gull cooperation between the two govern-
ments should be mandatory. There is unanimous agreement that in order
to fOrmulaze a plan and also to update the existing and now neglected
Aspen Master er Play:, a professional planner should be retained by the
City of Aspen. With this overriding concern for planning in mind ,
Our Gisc::ssions reveal four major areas of concern, as follows :
1. The problem Of pedestrian and automobile circulation;
2. The desirability of controlled growth;
The need for preiervation of views from the city
to the mountains and for enhancement of the city -
scape ; and
4. The anticipation of ,pollution and destruction of
the existing natural environment .
We wish, briefly, to elaborate on each of these areas of concern.
it First , the p of?lem of pedestrian and automobile circulation:
is our feeling that the automobile should not be excluded from
,.. e t;O:a'atown area , but that a ti;+,:ay should be found to opt mice all
the kinds Of traffic which we have , each of which is in some way
necessary. We think that the emphasis should be placed on pedestrian
picycle rather than on automobile circulations and that several
things can be done to encourage this emphasis . Consideration should
be given to the develop ment of a downtown area mail easily accessible
from parking areas to be purchased by the City and accessible from
e rest o: town by a free or cheap :node of public transportation.
Nedes ria. , bicycle and horse traffic from all parts of town should
be encouraged by limiting certain streets , alleys and pathways to
people on foot , bicycle or horse , in order to prevent the congestion
cnused by frequent and unnecessary trips downtown, a delivery service
Z�om dow : ,,own shops should be instigated . And in particular , to
ovect the school children and to facilitate the mow of traffic
6" lain Street , an underpass from Paepeke Park under :,lain Street
should be designed and constructed as soon as possible.
r-
When it comes to our second area of concern , the desirability
of controlled growth, it has proven difficult in discussion to
define what we mean by "growtla controls" . We are at least amenable
to the suggestion that the application of ecological principles and
water resources planning is the rational way of defining a limit
to the number of people the Valley will support . A majority agree
that for the time being, we would do well to discontinue any subsidy
of the ACVB for advertising purposes. Every business should hence-
forth be required to have a license; and a combination of zoning
regulations and specific laws should be enacted to prevent the
establishment of industries deemed incompatible with the area.
Perhaps one of the more important aspects of Aspen' s growth is the
present employee housing situation. We feel that initiative should
be taken by the City, if only by default , to encourage investment
by developers and businesses in low rent housing.
Although we do not all concur on the desirability of aesthetic
controls , each of us is united in the desire to preserve lines of
sight to the mountains and to keep some open spaces between buildings
and along our streets . This is our third area of concern: The
preservation of our views and the enhancement of the cityscape.
It is felt that open space should be a provision in any future
development ; that design review of new structures should be an
additional function of the Planning and Zoning Commission ; that the
placement of all utilities underground is extremely desirable ; that
designation and public acquisition of scenic easements , parks ,
recreation areas and green belts should take place; and finally, that
there should be encouragement of deed and other restrictions and
covenants to prevent the misuse of open space.
The last , but not least , of our four areas of concern is
anticipation of pollution and destruction of the existing natural
environment . Mostly, we are concerned with our own area of municipal
and private lands adjacent to the public domain, but two of Dr .
Harvey's proposals seem pertinent to us. First , that anti-pollution
laws should be strictly and vigorously enforced ; and second , that the
Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness Area should be enlarged to include
areas farther to the east . Neither of these proposals bear directly
on Aspen as a municipality, but we wish to draw attention to them
in a sort of general way, to know more generally how the different
candidates will respond to something that -- though not strictly
within our jurisdiction -- we feel strongly about . It has been
our experience that there exist a number of souls who do not know
what a wilderness area is and do not know that we have one in our
back yard . We are for the biggest back yard we can get !
We hope that the candidates for mayor and city council will
hear us and will not balk at our -- some of them -- very specific
suggestions , for they are intended , like Dr . Harvey's points we are
sure , mainly to draw them out , to reveal to us as voters who among
them shares our concerns and feelings about this place called "Aspen" .
There are things which we do not know and which perhaps we cannot
do, but we came together to share our views , and we find that we
are not lacking -- either in our views or in our coming together.
In summation, then, we are agreed that the candidates which we
shall choose to endorse in the coming election should be in
substantial agreement with us in our very strong feeling that a
general plan must be formulated in the immediate future ; that the
growth of Aspen should not go uncontrolled ; that the circulation
of automobile traffic should come under severe scrutiny; that the
natural environment must be carefully protected for all time ; and
finally, that , as we come and go, at work and at play, we should not
so constrict ourselves by our buildings and our roads that we can,
in the hustle and bustle , no longer see the magnificent landscape
which surrounds us and which, in summer and winter, brings so many of
our compatriots to Aspen.
Jim Breasted
2 - October 7, 1969
3
ROBERT LAMB HART ADAM KRIVATSY WILLIAM STUBEE
PLANNING CONSULTANTS
San Francisco
August 25, 1971
Mr. Herb Bartel, Planning Director
City Planning Office
P. O. Box V
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Herb:
I enjoyed seeing you again and discussing with you the way we could begin
working together. Our conversation expanded my understanding of where
you stand in planning for the future. It appears that we could help you in the
area of design and design controls.
In response to your verbal request we are pleased to submit this proposal
for consulting with you. We propose to complement your work in areas to
which you may not be able to address yourselves. The result of our coop-
eration could be an "open space plan" and complementary measures of
implementation. We propose that we work together based on the following
three phase work program:
1. Define your objectives related to open space planning and the commun-
ity image and the constraints that we must respect.
2. Arr ive at an open space plan.
3. Recommend supporting legal measures for implementation.
The above process would involve the following more detailed scope of work:
1. The Basis for a Plan
In our first step we would work with you to establish the goals and
limitations that will affect our work. We could do this in consideration
of the following:
a) your adopted growth policies
b) your community's desires as to the image of Aspen and its
environment
80 WEST FORTIETH STREET,NEW YORK 10018 675 CALIFORNIA STREET, SAN FRANCISCO 94108
Mr. Herb Bartel
August 25, 1971
Page two
c) the way of life Aspen should represent for its residents and visitors
d) your community's financial objectives
e) your methods of operation, management and "housekeeping, " and
your decision making process
f ) land ownership patterns
g) available or potential legal tools
h) your current programs, plans and on-going efforts
i) any other specific area of concern you may have
We expect that this work could be accomplished within two weeks. At
the end of the second week we would summarize our objectives and the
constraints based on which we are expected to continue working toward
a plan. Our office would prepare estimates of Aspen's open space
requirements.
2. An Open Space Plan
The second step would lead us to a product that could become one of
the most useful tools in the hands of the City and County Administrators,
the Planning and Zoning Commissions and, of course, your office: a
concept for the layout and use of your permanent open space.
Based on our approved first summary statement we would proceed then
to prepare this plan with the objective to answer questions like:
a) what are the open space requirements of Aspen?
b) what type of open spaces would satisfy your community objectives;
what should be the "use" and character of these open spaces?
c) what are specific areas that the community wishes to preserve as
permanent open space?
d) what priorities should be respected in aiming for the preservation
and assembly of open space; what should be regarded the "essential"
versus only "desirable" components of your network of permanent
open spaces?
e) what open spaces should be acquired?
During this phase of our work we would sketch out and evaluate alternate
approaches toward an open space plan. These alternatives would be
based on a variation of priorities and different conceptual ideas.
We expect that a month after the first report is refined into a work
program we could have our alternate conceptual sketches ready for
evaluation. At that time we would select the preferred alternative or--
if none of them can stand on their own--we could arrive at an under-
standing about the direction our plan should take. This plan could be
Mr. Herb Bartel
August 25, 1971
Page three
completed within a month after we have reached an understanding
regarding the contents of such a plan.
We assume that the plan would be documented in the scale and format
that will best suit your daily needs. A brief explanatory text would
accompany the plan.
3. Regulatory Measures
In our third step we would prepare a draft of supporting regulatory
measures. After due discussions this draft could later become the
basis for an ordinance guiding the use, treatment and protection of
public open spaces within and around Aspen. Special emphasis would
be placed on the protection of scenic views and vistas, view corridors
and response to those codes that affect community appearance. Based
on our past experience with similar work we anticipate that the controls
would involve a combination of text and illustrative diagrams.
Work on a draft of the proposed controls could begin once the open
space plan is defined. The finished product could be in your hands
within a month after we commence work on the draft.
In summary, we propose to work with you in three steps. The first one would
provide us with an understanding of what we should and what we can hope to
aim for. The second step would give you a plan for the physical form and the
appearance of Aspen that could become one of the most important tools both
in your daily work and your long-range decisions. The third step would
provide you with a basis for a future ordinance that is aimed to define and
preserve your open spaces.
With good organization and the necessary work discipline we could carry out
our task within one hundred days, before the end of the year. The degree of
our office's involvement could be determined at our first work session. We
are quite flexible in this regard; we see ourselves as an extension of your
capabilities bringing added perspective and our national experience to your
community. We trust that once we assigned responsibilities and once we
understand how our office could specifically contribute to planning for your
open space legislation we could arrive at a fee that recognizes our
contribution.
Mr. Herb Bartel
August 25, 1971
Page four
We hope that this outline for our collaboration will be acceptable to you.
Please let us know what comments you may have. We are looking forward
to joining the dedicated team that plans for Aspen's future.
With best regards,
1
Adam Krivatsy, AIA, AIP
AK:ck
September 14, 1971
Mr. Adam I0rivatsy
Planning Consultant
675 California Street
San Francisco, California 94108
Dear Adam,
I have reviewed your letter and feel that items 1 and 2
should concentrate specifically on establishing the basis
for design and view control regulations, such as an explan-
ation of why the view of the mountain from selected loca-
tions and architectural control are important for the melon
tenance of the tourist economy. The basis for selecting
the location from which the view would be protected as well
as physical inventory information with respect to percen-
tage of slope, soil and geologic conditions that will support
establishment of green line on the mountain should be inclu-
ded.
Although an open space plan has not been developed, the City
has committed 3.7 million dollars to the preservation of open
space. Therefore I believe that the most important consid-
eration is a direct establishment of the basis for design and
biew control regulation as contrasted to the development of a
general open space plan. Any findings supporting our basic
objective would be incorporated in an overall open space plan.
However, since we are now involved in the transportation study
and funding is not available for the development of an open
space plan, I feel that that item will be difficult to accomp-
lish.
i
- 2 -
Regulatory measures should also consider architectural review
procedures affecting additions to buildings which have not
been designated for historic preservation, but which make a
major contribution toward establishing the character of the
Aspen townsi.te. l
I am enclosing a draft of the historical zoning regulation
which has not been weviewed by the attorney and therefore j
may change substantially. A need for architectural control
also exists for buildings which may not have historical si7g-
i
nificance.
In summary, I am hoping we can be more specifc in rather developing
the the basis for design and view control regulations
attempting to develop an over all open space plan.
Cordially,
Herb Bartel
Regional Planner
HB Idb
enc.
J
•P
v lie
IP
`'
3 a
• ' rT�t•i y�j ,r.�� •3' o -r4il�3�jr
,��
• 1�
t
II KI '2�Sy;
Wl� ti INN
t
ML
f
r
�• 'it ,� ?+ . , •/ r =
1 �
J
I tJr
I
mS 0t
saw. V
r
r
AM�, 1 � ,
wow
I _ I
low
res
iLa
I
r Y A - - j ;
- t ,
rr ,t?e� a'°�•''..�""_'----�.--fir—:� .t• -_ -. ��.
'�; '�; •. '� � '��'k, - ��t=:- �i d __ t_� -�_. _mot ,.--.
pp—
t i
• r ,` •i.oti�j F� ..
%- +�►^ - - 1 a .r., .)- It. �-+s'. -" .. Tee _ _, —
q �
Y-:.�, ! . Jf { c .r' ✓.r- '(-,, ,y l�{1sM 10A
- y
{
.M
1
). I� Il 1I
i�
oil" i r
IM1 4
1
L.
a 91I[�I
:, p f
sue_
Tail' �. �' � •'� � . �' � �
s1° Zi t.
I_
�o
• 1
73r
► lkK.
Nk
wl
LPP
L 1�
} s •
4
YZ
y
t
}
y 14
44 �1
T
ti�
;� � ,'
�, iii �
I� �t i
_�
;.
�� .�� �,
it "', ,�..
�� �. .
l� a�
s :� M; ``
��I�.
�� �' 't�
}-
. yl � l --
:y�/
W'°•
1
A '
ALf
y
tr
i
9
VN�
.r
inj
Now
Y Y
bw
14, -_
...,.
.r
r
K
f
" f � 1
r
1 7
.;,
y � +� ��. *I+ �1� •.fit '!
1
Y
i I �
5
I � r
`!„r Iu p glr t
Affa
� 3 �'1 Ae���b�t .�' —aim •�����'y�Y'T � � r _ — r- `� !I�yl,����I � -
- .X 4 S r yy. -I � -� . � ♦ r`i611FC'�i' r
.�7rrir- �iI i:� s� 'l+I 4�� � ��• �, ��,{ 7 '����_ IY4 l�rk .1p ��
� is a :'r� �: �,,, �e �, !' Z� �� �., ''�fS.► ;a, �} '1,�+�':,;-''+16� 11� '`"'+w
I� 1
.a
1
1
f � _
OA,
.r
Al
4'•
r �
•
,AS
v r I J _ _ W,," ` • ��_ � �� �� � `Y �- .�.a _._ _- .�'.�"� °,pro' �... � .,w�^fir°'•
Ail
�� �.i;;;ni,•lulu _i,� i :mini�_.;�,���.• �_;; �.��! 7 "., .. .
fir:. l
i
i
Al
r • 7
vl IL
r �' •l
- ♦ may' - - � � � .. - _
t
Mat
ro�
� x I. :,� + •..1
wt
v 44
*:r •?. Y � !+ ��L� -. -..- _— �� r � j ��. �, �� nil
} y �
w
wr
3
it�. +12:. 1 ,-�, + .:..,7 �r.c»,�.,. \� — �.�"� Y ..4 o-_' o�` 3� •�!t� � '
rr � 's� .p S �r � 3ilC �1`•
i _
■
1 �
t` � 1 � p oF.,• r
..tee.. ..
r �
OCT 71 OCT 71
A
SUBMISSION FOR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING
JANUARY 15, 1973 ON VIEW CORRIDORS
NO. ITEM
1. ASPO Planning Advisory Service Article
August, 1966 - View Protection Regulations
2 Memo from Jim Breasted, ". . . need for
preservation of views . . " October 7, 1969
3 Letter from Hart, Krivatsy, Stubee dated
August 25, 1971
Return correspondence dated September 14, 1971
4 Letter from Hart, Krivatsy, Stubee dated
October 11, 1971
5 A Proposal for an Urban Design Supplement
to the Historic and Zoning Ordinances -
Hart, Krivatsy, Stubee December 27 , 1971
6 Central Aspen - Urban Design Problem Statement
Sketch Map December, 1971
7 Memo to Aspen Planning Commission, December 27 ,
1971 - Historic Ordinance Supplement - View
Control
g Restrictions-Structures Within Areas Necessary
to Preserve Mountain Views (Revised Municipal
Code of the City and the County of Denver)
9 Field Notes of December 30 and 31, 1971, Map
by Alam Krivatsy
10 Comments on OBSERVATION RE. THE ZONING ORDINANCE
OF THE CITY OF ASPEN FROM THE POINT OF VIEW
OF VIEW CONTROL AND URBAN DESIGN CONTROLS .
January 1, 1972
11 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
of January 4, 1972
12 Special Session - Aspen City Council Minutes
of December 69 1972
13 ASPO Magazine Article - January, 1973 - San
Francisco limits the buildings to see the
sky by Peter S . Svirsky
14 Continued Meeting - Aspen Planning and Zoning
Minutes of March 22, 1973
15 City of Aspen Ordinance No. 17 , Series of 1973-
"RESTRICTING HEIGHTS OF STRUCTURES WITHIN AREAS
NECESSARY TO PRESERVE MOUNTAIN VIEW. " May 29, 1973
SUBMISSION FOR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING
JANUARY 15 , 1973 ON VIEW CORRIDORS
PAGE TWO
NO. ITEM
16 ORDINANCE NO. 19 an-i the Aspen Land Use Map
July, 1973
17 Capital Improvements and Maintenance and
Expenditures
18 Inventory Slides for report_ "A Proposal for an
Urban Design Supplement to the Historic and
Zoning Ordinances"
19 View Preservation Slides by Planning Office
20 Memorandum to Planning Commission from
Planning Office dated January 7 , 1974.
21 Growth in Traffic in Aspen Area
Information obtained from the Alan .
Voorhees & Associates , Inc . Regional
Traf`ic ?'enort
22 Economic Supplement To Wiew Preservation
Plan dated March 21, 1974-
23 Historic Significance Of Downtown. Aspen-?Tarch 21 , 7.97/,
24 Public Use of Places for Which `view Preservation
Proposed dated '"larch 21, 1974-
25 :demo from City Attorney regarding Validity
of Viewnlane Ordinance dated 'larch 19 , 197
26 Map Showing Proposed Historic District , Public
Ownership , Proposed Public Acquisition and Public
�1all .
27 List of Public Hearings and rTinutes Relating
to View Corridors
28 City Council Minutes o{ T?arclh 23 , I'M,
Reading of Ordinance =5
' 4
ROBERT LAMB HART ADAM KRIVATSY WILLIAM STUBEE
PLANNING CONSULTANTS
San Francisco
October 11, 1971
Mr. Herb Bartel, Planning Director
City Planning Office
P. O. Box V
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Herb:
This letter formalizes our understanding that we will be available to work
with you for the remainder of the year. Our primary task will be to help
you establish a workable basis for environmental design and view control
regulations that would guide development in the City of Aspen and its
immediate environment.
Our office will supplement your staff work by focusing on the following
key issues:
1) A definition of the objectives that relate to the community's
image and its public open spaces;
2) An analysis of the reasons why the view of the mountain (from
selected locations) and a coordinated approach to architectural
and environmental design are essential for the maintenance of
your tourist economy;
3) Recommendations for the selection of locations from which
views would be protected;
4) A definition of the areas which play an important role in making
up the Aspen community people come to visit, and an analysis of
the reasons why development in those areas should be guided and
controlled;
5) A suggested outline of regulatory measures and related review
procedures affecting new construction and additions to buildings
which may not have been designated for historic preservation
but which might make a major contribution toward establishing
the character of Aspen's townscape.
80 WEST FORTIETH STREET,NEW YORK 10018 675 CALIFORNIA STREET, SAN FRANCISCO 94108 t
v
San Francisco
October 11, 1971
Page two
To assure good results, we will carry out our assignment in close
collaboration with your office. We expect to work with you during your
planned stay in San Francisco later this month and in Aspen during the
months of November and December. The fee for our services will be
$3, 500, payable in three installments at the end of each month. We
would expect a payment of $1, 000 on October 31st, November 30th and a
final payment of $1, 500 upon submission of our work by the end of the
year. We understand that only draft copies will be submitted to you. The
final typing and reproduction will be done by your office in Aspen.
As I have already expressed to you during our early discussions, we are
most enthusiastic about working with you on this assignment. Please
let us know if you have any questions regarding this letter. If the
contents are acceptable to you, please return a signed copy to our San
Francisco office for our files; it should serve as your formal authori-
zation for us to commence work.
Sincerely yours,
Adam Krivatsy, AIA, AIP
AK:ss
Accepted by Date
: .
� .
a
, �
1.
w
�1
its
::.�
$_
�/
2
A PROPOSAL FOR
AN URBAN DESIGN SUPPLEMENT
TO THE HISTORIC AND ZONING ORDINANCES
CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
Hart . Krivatsy . Stubee
December 1971
TO: Aspen Planning Commission
FROM. Planning Office
DATE: December 27, 1971
SUBJECT: Urban Design Supplement to Historic Ordinance--
View Control
During the past few months Adam Krivatsy worked with our office
to establish a basis for environmental design and view control
regulations that would guide development in the City of Aspen and
its immediate environment. The Planning Office worked with
Adam on the following key issues:
A. A definition of the objectives that relate to the community's
image and its public open spaces;
B. An analysis of the reasons why the view of the mountain
(from selected locations) and a coordinated approach to
architectural and environmental design are essential for
the maintenance of the tourist economy;
C. Recommendations for the selection of locations from which
views should be protected;
D. A definition of the areas which play an important role in
making up the Aspen community people come to visit, and
an analysis of the reasons why development in those areas
should be guided and controlled;
E. A suggested outline of regulatory measures and related
review procedures affecting new construction and additions
to buildings which may not have been designated for historic
preservation but which might make a major contribution
toward estabishing the character of Aspen's townscape.
At this time we wish to present our preliminary thoughts to you
for discussion and comment. We have applied our objectives as
we see them, and we also covered the other four aspects of our
work program. In the following we present a brief summary of
our thought processes.
2
A. OBJECTIVES
The proposed regulations serve a dual purpose: they are to assist
us in preserving the community's IMAGE, CHARACTER and
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITIES for its residents as well as for
its visitors.
There are two very strong reasons why the character of Aspen
should be preserved: one of them is definitely economic, the
other one relates to the quality of life in Aspen.
1. Tourist Economy
The character of Aspen is one of the bases upon which
Aspen can attract its visitors all year round. (Aspen
is and must remain different from places like Vail and
other new, planned mountain resorts. )
The character of Aspen and its environment as it is today
is essential for visitors of a touristic nature (who seek
scenery), and it is desirable for visitors who may have
cultural interest in Aspen (who appreciate the "atmosphere"
of the place).
3
2. Life in Aspen
Aspen's current character is a necessary part of the lifestyle
of Aspenites who built the town, who maintain the place
and who (perhaps) came here to start new lives because they
appreciate and love the qualities and life Aspen represents.
Accordingly, the INTENTION of the proposed supplement
to the historic zoning measures is primarily ECONOMIC
(in order to maintain Aspen's competitive position as a
year round mountain resort) and is secondarily related to
the GENERAL WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC.
The ECONOMIC reasons that call for the preservation of Aspen's
character are seen as follows:
a. both the City and the County derive substantial income
from the retail sales tax (1% and 2% respectively),
and the retail sales are heavily supported by tourist
expenditures;
b. Pitkin County receives more than 75% of its income
from tourism;
4
C. in the past years 38-42% of the total labor force in
Aspen and Pitkin County is in the "service" sector;
this sector provides more stable employment to
Aspenites than others: construction, agriculture and
mining; and,
d. Aspen is experiencing a shift of economic activity
from the City to the County as reflected by the-decreased
percentage of the total retail sales tax which is collected
in the City. To maintain Aspen's strong economic
position in the future it must now look primarily to
qualitative growth rather than quantitative development
that may take place in the County.
We believe that the GENERAL WELFARE of the local populace
depends on Aspen's character because:
a. a respect for the natural environment maintains
Aspen's position as a scientific and cultural CENTER;
b. a continuing concern for the "historic Aspen" is
essential for maintaining STABLE POPULATION
(recent out migrations occurred to places that
5.
strongly resemble the Aspen of the past: Created
Butte and Telluride, Colorado and Sonoma, Arizona);
C. Aspen's and Pitkin County's residents take a definite
pride in their community and work continually for the
betterment of the area as a PLACE TO LIVE,. and the
physical environment has much to do with the quality
of life.
What really makes up the CHARACTER and IMAGE of Aspen
and the quality of the PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT that we should
be concerned about?
Two areas, actually. 1) The URBAN SCENE and
2) the surrounding RURAL LANDSCAPE.
Both of these are equally important, as is the transition
between the two. Related questions are:
Environmental (physical, technical),
Jurisdictional (administrative), and
Legal (control measures).
6
1) THE URBAN SCENE contains both the PLACES
that one sees and the PLACES from WHERE one
primarily tends to appreciate the mountain
surroundings (places of congregation).
a) WHAT one sees is to be evaluated .
from several points of view: from the
point of view of movement and with respect
to the personality and interest of the viewer.
In essence all three: the locale, the pace
of movement, and the personality and
interest of the viewer are to be considered.
Of course there might be innumerable
combinations as the following diagram
indicates:
(1) By car By visitor (3)
(2) On foot By resident (4)
(1) For the DRIVER views will be most
meaningful along the major routes
of travel--at faster pace, in less
detail. The drivers will register
their general impression, not the
details; only "landmarks" will be
important.
(2) For the PEDESTRIAN the experience
is more personal, at a slower pace,
in the pedestrian (shopping and
service) areas. The pedestrian
views and appreciates his environ-
ment in great detail; in planning
for him not landmarks but specific
building to people relationships are
important. The pedestrian has a
need for a "sense of place. "
(3) For VISITORS, both the DRIVER as
well as the PEDESTRIAN experiences
are equally significant. Reference
points and "landmarks" are essential
for orientation and the "places" convey
Aspen's life and character.
8
(4) For RESIDENTS primarily
PEDESTRIAN environment will have
to be provided. For local people
the character and livability of the
places are most important.
In thinking about the urban area we are basically
concerned with (more complex and general)
STREET SCENES and the more (specific and
characteristic) PLACES of interest. In general
the latter are related to downtown activities
and/or buildings that are of significance to
people.
The CHARACTER of street scenes and places is
defined as what people do there and what they
sense there (part of the sensation is, of course,
what they see).
2) THE RURAL LANDSCAPE
There we are primarily concerned with the
rural character of the environment:
9
a) The ENTRANCES to the community
(primarily by car),
b) and the MOUNTAINS (including the
hillsides and the foothills), primarily
Shadow Mountain and Aspen Mountain.
The approach to Aspen is important primarily
from the direction of the airport and the other
ski areas: lying west of the town. The entrance
to Aspen from Independence Pass is important
during the summer and fall seasons.
Both the dominant features of the western
P
entrance to Aspen r Shadow Mountain and Aspen
Mountain looming over the community--are
still undeveloped. -Unless appropriate action
will be taken, they will not remain in their
current state.
Of the two mountains, the first ote i-s_ in its
natural state, Aspen Mountain already represents
a modified environment.
10
The NATURAL environment includes the moun-
tain mass itself, pasture land, woodlands and
stream beds. The MODIFIED environment
includes the ski slopes, ski lifts, power lines,
roads, buildings (or water tanks, etc. ) and
possibly automobiles.
If not appropriately arrayed the latter four can
represent an undesirable clutter on the
mountain.
11
B. WHY ADDITIONAL CONTROLS ARE NEEDED
Current controls of urban development in the Aspen area include
J
the following:
1. ZONING ORDINANCES
2. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
3. BUILDING CODES
4. STREAM MARGINS ORDINANCE, and the
5. HISTORIC ORDINANCE in the making.
Although these regulatory measures control most of the ACTIVITIES
(land uses, their distribution, intensity, etc. ) and some of the
CHARACTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT (building types, their
bulk, height, land coverage, etc. ), they still do not adequately
provide guidance and control of a few .things that are essential or
important in giving CHARACTER to a PLACE:
a. The relation of PEOPLE to BUILDINGS,
b. the relation of AUTOMOBILES to PEOPLE and
BUILDINGS, and
C. the relation of urban PLACES to the surrounding
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT (the mountain, that is).
12
In SUMMARY the supplementary ordinance's purpose is to provide
for better, coordinated design of the MANMADE ENVIRONMENT
of the urban areas and to secure VIEWS OF THE NATURAL
SETTING from both the road and the downtown public 1p aces.
13
C. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LOCATIONS FROM WHICH
VIEWS SHOULD BE PROTECTED.
Views of the mountain should be assured primarily from the more
frequented PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY AREAS. These can be
(more specific) URBAN PLACES or (more general) URBAN
AREAS. Based on their character they can be classified as
PUBLIC (Streets, Plazas, Parks, Buildings)
PRIVATE (Hotels, Drug Stores)
DAYTIME (Shops, public offices) and
NIGHTTIME (Restaurants, theaters)
We recommend for your consideration first the:
1. PLACES (Public as well as Private) and
2. AREAS (Day and Nighttime, Year-round and Seasonal)
1. Nine specific PUBLIC PLACES (Activity Areas) have been
selected for primary consideration. These are:
a. The lot east of City Hall (which could be expanded
east through the acquisition of 3 small properties)
14
b. The lot east of the COUNTY COURTHOUSE
C6 The R. O. W. of Spring Street, south of Durant
d. The R. O. W. of Hunter, south of Durant
e. The north frontage of Durant Street (Bus Stop) between
Mill and Galena Streets
f. The lot west of the WHEELER OPERA HOUSE
g. The lot adjacent (east) to the FIRE HOUSE
h. The future POST OFFICE SITE
i. The Pitkin County LIBRARY
At least four (4) "PRIVATE" PLACES (Activity Areas) are
recommended for evaluation;
a. HOTEL JEROME
b. CARL"S PHARMACY
15
C. The CITY MARKET parking lot and
d. The NW corner of GALENA and COOPER (Landmark
buildings to be considered for historic designation)
2. PUBLIC AREAS recognized and recommended for special
consideration are first the four PARKS;
a. PAEPCKE PARK
b. WAGNER PARK
C. The park of HOPKINS and MONARCH and .
d. The park at ORIGINAL ST. and UTE AVE.
(Of course the emphasis of the parks' use is related
to the warmer months of the year. )
Important PEDESTRIAN STREETS are the following.
a. MILL ST. (Between Durant and Main)
b. GALENA ST. (Between Durant and Hyman)
16
C. COOPER AVE. (Between Mill and Hunter with
emphasis on part between Hunter and Galena)
d. HYMAN AVE. (Between Monarch and Hunter with
emphasis on part between Mill and Galena)
e. The corners (intersections) of COOPER AVE. and
GALENA ST.
f. The corners (intersection) of MILL ST. and HYMAN
AVE.
17
D. A DEFINITION OF THE AREAS WHICH PLAY AN IMPORTANT
ROLE IN MAKING UP THE ASPEN PEOPLE COME TO VISIT,
and AN ANALYSIS OF THE REASONS WHY DEVELOPMENT
IN THOSE AREAS SHOULD BE GUIDED AND CONTROLLED
As explained above there are basically three (3) areas of concern:
THE URBAN AREA
THE RURAL (Natural) ENVIRONMENT and
the TRANSITION ZONE (Foothills Area) between the two.
1. The URBAN AREAS of primary concern are the ones that
people frequent either on foot or view from their automobiles.
The first (the PEDESTRIAN) areas of concern were defined
under "C" of this report. The areas of concern to the
AUTOMOBILE DRIVER are of the following two types:
a. The RURAL APPROACH ZONES and GATEWAYS to
the community and
b. The URBAN ROUTES of TRAVEL, (the travel
experience within Aspen itself).
18
a. APPROACH ZONES
1) From the West--State Highway #82 essentially
beginning at the Aiport, but with emphasis on
the section between MAROON CREEK and
CASTLE CREEK.
2) From the East-- again, State Highway #82,
beginning at the ROARING FORK RIVER to
Difficult Campground.
b. THE URBAN TRAVEL EXPERIENCE must consider
through traffic, skier-destination traffic, traffic
generated by the Summer Institute's programs, the
local "transit" (minibus) routes and the routing of the
designated historic tours.
1) Through traffic routes are:
Seventh Street (between Hallam and Main)
Main Street (between Seventh and Garmish)
Hopkins Avenue (between Seventh and Original)
Hyman Avenue (between Aspen and Original)
Cooper Avenue (between Original and the
Roaring Fork River)
19
2) Mountain (skier) traffic routes are:
Garmish Street (between Main and Durant)
Monarch Street (between Main and Durant)
Hunter Street (between Main and Durant).
3) Visitors destined to the Summer Institute's
cultural, scientific and musical programs travel
primarily along Main and Third Streets.
4) Local transit routes (minibus routes) are
important especially in the winter months,
exposing skiers to parts of the community that
the buses frequent. The passengers originate
from the largest concentration of transient
accommodations and are destined to Snowmass
or Aspen Highlands, Buttermilk and the airport.
5) The designated "Historic Tours" are shown on
the map published by the Aspen Chamber of
Commerce. These tours take many visitors to
parts of the community to which they would
otherwise not be exposed.
20
As stated in Chapter "B" of this report, the development in the
above defined areas should be guided and controlled for both
economic and humanistic reasons; to give a better impression
to the visitors and to offer a more pleasant setting to the
residents.
21
E. REGULATORY MEASURES and RELATED REVIEW
PROCESSES recommended for consideration as possible
means for better environmental DESIGN CONTROL.
Rather than suggesting a new "Ordinance" we propose some
control measures that could complement those regulatory.
measures that are already in effect. These measures relate to
our three major areas of concern: the Urban, the Rural environ-
ments and the Transition (foothills) zone that lies between them.
1. For the URBAN AREAS we recommend four types of
measures:
a. First, specific VIEW PLANES should be adopted for
the major activity areas from which views should be
protected (see list of "selected areas" under C- 1
on pages 14 and 15 of this report).
b. Second, appropriate OVERLAY ZONING MEASURES
should be adopted for the most frequented pedestrian
areas, as defined by the "mid-block" lines beyond
Main Street, Spring Street, Durant Avenue and
Garmish Street. These "overlay" zones would affect
22
the CC, the C- 1 and the AR-1 zones and would entail
modifications relative to Development Intensity,
Building Height, Set-back, Bulk and the related
"bonus"-system (arcades, public ways, etc. ).
C. Third, URBAN DESIGN GUIDELINES and a related
REVIEW PROCESS should be adopted for the above
designated area, and, finally
d. SCENIC CONTROLS and the related review process
should be adopted for the foothills of Aspen Mountain
and for the more important routes of vehicular travel
(as described in "D") to define a "green line" (that
represents the "edge" of the built-up urban environ-
ment) and to assure a pleasant visual experience for
those who approach downtown (or the ski areas) by car.
It is strongly recommended that the 1966 plan be amended to
include these and other urban design elements that might be
based on an Urban Design Plan for Aspen.
For more specific recommendations see the observations
included in the Appendix of this report.
23
2, For the RURAL AREAS we recommend that:
a. The State Highway east and west of Aspen should be
designated and maintained as a "Scenic Parkway. "
More specifically, we recommend that:
1) The partial, 200' setback line along State Highway
##82 west of Aspen should be changed to a
"Landscaped Visual Easement, " where the
development rights along that strip of land are
purchased and where the City in cooperation
with the State Highway Department and Pitkin
County maintains the landscaped areas along the
entry road. (Such measures could be carried
out only in cooperation with the State Highway
Department. )
2) In addition, a VIEW ZONE (or VIEW PLANE)
should be defined (including Shadow Mountain)
to protect the traveler's DISTANT VIEW. Within
this zone all design objectives should be defined
and an appropriate REVIEW PROCESS should be
24
put into effect to assure protection of the scenic
travel experience throughout these approach
zones to the urban area.
3) The City of Aspen should also make every effort
to secure leases for government-owned lands
(Bureau of Land Management) on Shadow Mountain.
4) The same "SCENIC PARKWAY" standards
should be adopted for the State Highway that leads
toward Independence Pass.
5) The hillside and mountain areas surrounding
Aspen should be "frozen" in their current state,
controlled by law that designates them as
"SCENIC WILDERNESS" areas.
3. In the TRANSITION (or FOOTHILL) ZONES two alternatives
are recommended for consideration:
a. Either the ASPEN GENERAL PLAN be backed up by a
complementary (County? ) adjustment in the Zoning Map
to keep the foothills of Aspen Mountain free of
development (Aspen Alps l) or
25
b. A new, modified form of the AR-2 zone be created
that provides for a suitable transition between the
intensively built-up urban zone and the slopes of the
mountain. The primary role of this new zone should
be to provide for a RURAL SCALE designed for
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT. This could be arcom-
plished by; 1) reducing development intensity; 2) a
reduction in building height and bulk and 3)
increasing open space. [The largest building mass
should not exceed 2, 500 sq. ft. with a maximum of
two story (or 251) building height!]
26
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS. AND RECOMMENDATIONS
It is definitely in the community's interest to maintain Aspen's
special character by providing for a good view of Aspen Mountain
and Independence Pass and by making both the auto-oriented and
the pedestrian spaces attractive.
The view of Aspen Mountain gives the community definite identity,
and this identity must be maintained to preserve Aspen's competi-
tive edge among the Colorado mountain resorts. A coordinated
approach to architectural and environmental design is essential
to maintain the scale and the character of the urban environment.
Specific places and general areas have been selected and are
recommended for special treatment; these are activity centers
and major activity areas from which most people would enjoy a
view of the mountain, regardless of whether they are residents
or visitors.
The areas which play an important role in representing the
Aspen people come to see and visit are the entry routes, the major
urban streets, the commercial core and the routes that skiers,
participants of the Summer Programs and visitors of the historic
27
buildings frequent. Development in those areas should be guided
and controlled because the current regulatory measures do not
provide adequate guidance to architects and developers toward
the creation of an image that would be in the community's best
interest.
It is recommended that Aspen work with Pitkin County in adopting
a "green line" beyond which development should not scale Aspen
Mountain; that specific zoning measures be adopted that assure the
development of the "transition zone" between the urban area and
the foothills at a desirable intensity and scale; that the view of the
mountain should be protected primarily in two basic ways: a)
from specific, selected activity centers the view be provided
through "view planes" and b) from activity areas frequented by
the public the view be provided by either a revision or amendment
of the CC and C-1 Zoning regulations or by an "overlay zoning
district" applicable to the downtown area; that certain urban
design considerations be included in this overlay zoning district,
to assure a more inviting and safe pedestrian environment; that
certain scenic guidelines be adopted for major routes of travel
both in the urban area and along the State Highway entering the
town from the east and west.
28
The consultants feel that these measures could be based most
soundly on an Urban Design component to be added to the General
Plan. Such an Urban Design Plan could be custom-tailored to suit
Aspen's needs and could provide a stable legal basis for any
measure that might be challenged in the building process.
29
SPECIFIC VIEW PLANES are not included in the current zoning
ordinance, thus, there is a risk that as Aspen gets built up, the
view of the mountain would gradually be lost from most frequented
"activity areas" and urban spaces.
Recommendation;
The City define and confirm the activity areas from which
mountain-view is desired:
the City investigate the feasibility of either PRESERVING
the view (if it exists) or CREATING the view (if this might
be achieved through redevelopment);
the City determine whether ap rtial or full view of the
mountain can be maintained as achieved and--accordingly--
determine the desired "view planes" and adopt the view
planes as a city policy; finally
the City either purchase "view easements" over the
properties in question, or
the City secure rights to the desired "view easements"
through timely regulatory measures or law. More extensive
ii
I
� I �
W tllG
View A L o tiIG U-s sTr mot' foTf✓Nn h 1, Mta - t oc� V i i=-W
In summary, downtown "building envelopes" should be designed
around the specific conditions that respect the width of the streets
and the distance from the mountain to provide for the desirable
view plane.
The Zoning Ordinance includes incentives for the provision of
"public way space" and/or "public arcade space" created at the
ground level of the property. These incentives don't seem to
incorporate, though, a policy to open up a view toward the
mountain. The "bonus" creates at least two problems.
a. It encourages the obstruction of the view of the
mountain on properties where arcades would run in
a north-south direction; and
iv
GROUND FLOOR USES, the SETBACK requirements and the form
("design") of pedestrian ways (sidewalks, boardwalks, arcades)
that serve the buildings.
Ground-floor uses should always be "people oriented" and
"street" or "sidewalk" oriented. The construction of
ground-floor living units and impersonal blank walls should
be discouraged. (ZO pp. 15, 18, 19, 21 and 22)
Building setbacks should be encouraged along the south
sides of block or at street intersections in key pedestrian
activity areas. (ZO pp. 19, 22 and 23)
In some areas where continuity of design and a strong
character is desired, the "overlay zoning" (as well as the
City's Public Works Department) could call for special
ways of reaching pedestrian areas: wooden "boardwalks, "
sidewalk grade crossings (with bump-up slow-down areas
for automobiles) could be introduced.
In evaluating ways the Zoning Ordinance deals with the AUTOMO-
BILE, both innovative solutions and related problems must be
recognized. It is a great idea to park automobiles serving the
Vi
7
, TO: Aspen Planning Commissiou
FROM Planning Office
DATE: Deccij�hor 279 1971
SUBJECT: Historic Ordinance Supplement ;- View Control
During the past few months Adam Krivatsy worked with our
office to establish a basis for enviro-amsntal design and
view control regulations that would guiJe development in
the City of Aspen and its immediate environment. The
Planning Office workod with Adam on the following key issues :
A. A definition of the objectives that relate to the
communitiy' s image and its public open spaces ;
B . An analysis of the reasons why the viaw of the
mountain (from selected locations) and a coordin-
ated approach to architectural and environmental.
design are essential for the maintenance of the
tourist economy;
C. Re c op-am-enda t ions for the selection of locations from
which views would be protected;
D. A definition & the areas which play an important
role in making up the Aspen comr:alnity people come
to visit, and an analysis of the reasons why deval op-
ment in those areas slyuld be guided and controlled;
2 -
E. A suggested outline of regulatory measures and
related review procedures affecting new construc-
tion and additions to buildings which may not
have been designated for historic preservation
but which might make a major contribution toward
establishing the character of Aspen' s townscape.
At this time we wish to present our preliminary thoughts
to the Planning Commission for discussion and comment.
We have applied our objectives as we see them, and we
covered items B . and C. of our work program. In the following
we present a brief summary of our thought processes .
A. OBJECTIVES
The proposed regulations serve a dual purpose: they are to
assist us in preserving the community' s IMAGE , CHARACT17, and
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITIES .
There are two very strong reasons why the character of Aspen
should be preserved: one of them is definately economic , the
other_ one relates to the quality of life in Aspen.
1. Tourist Economy
The character_ of Aspen is one of the bases upo7-r which.
Aspen can attract its visitors all year round.. (Aspen
is and must remain different from places like Vail and
oth.:r new, planned mountain resorts.)
3
The character of Aspen and its environment as it is
today is essential for visitors of a touristic nature
(who seek scenery) , and it is desirable for visitors
who may have scientific or cultural interest in Aspen
(who appreciate the "atmosphere" of the place) .
2. Life in Aspen.
Aspen' s current character is a necessary part of the
Aspenites ' life who built the place., who maintain the
place and who (perhaps) came here to start new lives
because they appreciate and love tb� qualities and life
Aspen represents .
Accordingly . the INTENTION of the proposed supple-
ment to the historic zoning measures is primarily
ECONOMIC (in order to maintain Aspen' s competitive
position as a year round mountain resort) and is secon-
darily related to the
GENERAL WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC .
The ECONOMIC reasons that call for the preservation of
Aspen' s character are primarily as follows :
a) Both the City and the County derive substantial
income (1% and 2% respectively) from the retail sales
- LE.
tax w and the retail sales are heavily supported
by tourist expenditures ;
b) Pitkin County receives more than 75% of its
income from tourism, and
c) During the past years 38-42% of the total labor
fore- in Aspen and Pitkin County -is in Ilse _"service"
sector; the sector provides more stable employment
to. Asp enites than others : construction, agriculture
and mining.
We Believe that the GENERAL WELFARE of the local populace
depends on Aspen' s character because:
a) A re�ec t for the natural environment maintains
Aspen' s position as a scienLif_ic and cultural CENTER;
b) A continuing �for the "historic Asp_exz"
is essential for maintaining STABLE POPULATION (recent
out migrations occurred to places that strongly res-
emble the Aspen of the past: Crested Butte and Tellu.--
ride, Colorado and Sonoma, Arizona;
c) Aspen' s and Pitkin County' s residents takt- a
definite pride in their community and work continually
for the betterment of the area as. a PLACE TO LIVE, and
the physical environment has much to do with the quality
of life (the conccrn about hospitals , traffic, streams ,
etc. ) .
S .z
What really makes up CHARACTER and IMAGE of Aspen
and the quality of the PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT that
we should be concerned about?
Two areas , really:
1. The URBAN ENVIRONMENT and surrounding
2. RURAL LANDSCAPE .
Both of these are equally important, including
the transition between the two. Related ques-
tions are:
Environmental (physical, technical) ,
Jurisdictional (administrative) , and
Legal (contol measures) .
1. THE URBAN (SCENE) ENVIRONMENT contains both
the PLACES that one sees
the PLACES from WHERE one primarily tends to
appreciate the mountain surroundings (places of
congregation) .
a) WHAT one sees , again, is to be evaluated from
several points of view: from the point of vieTa
of movement and with respect to the personality
and interest of the viewer. In essence all three:
the locale, the pace of movement, and the person-
ality of the viewer are to be considered. Of course
6
there might be invirii.era"Dle com7binatio--as as the
following paragraph indicates :
(1) By car By visitor (3)
(2) On foot By resident (4)
(1) For the DRIVER views will be most mean-
ingful along the major routes of travel --
at faster pace, in. less detail. The drivers
will register their general impression, details
are not, only "la-fidmarks" will be important.
(2) For the PEDESTRIAN the experience is more
person-al, at a slower pace, in the pedestrian
(shopping and service) area} . The pedestrian
views and appreciates his environment in great
detail; in. planning for him not landmarks but
specific build-Lng, to people relationships are
important. The pedestrian has a strong need
for a "sense of place. "
(3) For VISITORS , both the DRIVER as well as
the PEDESTRIAN, bxperiences are equally signi-
fican.t (reference points and. landmarks) are
essent)-al for orientation and the "places"
convey Aspen' s life and cha-i--acter.
• A
. 7 w
(4) For RESIDENTS primarily PEDESTRIAN environ-
ment will have to be provided. For them the
character and li.vTabili ty of the places are most
important®
In thinking about the urban environment we are
basically concerned with (more complex and general)
STREET SCENES and the more (specific and character--
istic) PLACES of interest. In general the latter
are related to downtown activities and/or buildings
that are of significance to people.
The CHARACTER of street scenes and places is defined
as what people do there and what they sense there
(part of the sensation is , of course, what they see) .
2. THE RURAL (SCENE) ENVIRONNtENT
(The mountain backdrop. )
There we are primarily concerned with the rural character
of the environment:
a) The ENTRANCE to the community (primarily by car) ,
b) and. the MOUNTAINS (including the hillsides and
the foothills) , primarily Shadow Mountain and. Aspen
Mountain.
The entrance to Aspen is primarily important from the
direction of the airport and the roads that link Aspen
8 M
with the other- ski. areas (from the west) .
Both the doir..inant features of the western entrance
to Aspen: Shadow Mountain and the mountain looming
over the community are still undeveloped. Unless
appropriate action will be taken, they rail]_ not
remain in their current .
Of the two mountains , the first one 4s in its natural
state, Aspen mountain already represents a modified
environment.
The NATURAL environment includes the mountain mass
itself, pasture land, woodlands and. stream beds .
The MODIFIED environment includes the ski slopes ,
ski lifts , power 'Lines , roads , buildings (or water
tanks , etc . ) and possibly automobiles .
If not appropriately arrayed the latter four can
represent an undesirable clutter on the mountain.
B. WILY ADDITIONAL CONTROLS ARE NEEDED
Current controls of urban development in the Aspen area
include the following:
1. ZONING ORDINANCES
2 . SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
3. BUILDING CODES
9
4. STREAM MARGINS ORDINANCE, and the
5. HISTORIC ORDINANCE in the making.
Although these regulatory measures control most of the
ACTIVITIES (land uses , their distribution, intensity,
etc . ) and some of the CHARACTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT
(building types , their bulk, height, land coverage,
etc. ) , they still do not adequately provide guidance
and control of a few things that are essential or impor-
tant in giving CHARACTER to a PLACE :
a) The relation of PEOPLE to BUILDINGS ,
b) the relation of automobile to people and buildings ,
and
c) the relation of urban spaces to the surrounding
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT (the mountain, that is) .
In. SUM RY the supplementary ordil-ante ' s purpose is to
provide for better, coordinated design of the
MANMADE ENVIRONMENT of the urban areas and to secure
VIEWS OF TI1F, NATURAL SETTING from both the road. and the
downtown public places .
10
1/4/72
OBSERVATION RE . THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN FROM THE POINT OF VIEW
OF VIEW CONTROL AND URBAN DESIGN CONTROLS
The following text represents comments related to and an
evaluation of the current zoning practices in' downtown Aspen.
It also includes general recommendations for the remedy of
potential problem areas . In evaluating the zoning ordinance
emphasis was placed on primarily three particular urban
. design concerns : the VIEW TOWARD ASPEN MOUNTAIN, the CREATION
OF A BETTER PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT, and the assurance of a
more attractive TRAVEL EXPERIENCE through the built up urban
areas . The first concern is expressed inideas related to
specific urban places ("activity areas") through the use of
VIEW PLANES and to the downtown environment 'in general through
recommended OVERLAY ZONING measures , partly through recommended
approaches towards URBAN DESIGN GUIDELINES and SCENIC GUIDELINES .
VIEW "OF ASPEN MOUNTAIN AND INDEPENDENCE PASS
The view to the mountain and the pass could be assured through
the creation of VIEW PLANES and through appropriate building
bei_ght and bulk regulations .
SPECIFIC VIEW PLANES are-not included in the current zoning
ordinance, thus , there is a risk that as Aspen gets built up
2 r
to its "zoning envelope", the view of the mountain would be
gradually lost from most frequented "activity areas" and
urban spaces . (Excepting the north-south streets and the
major public parks . )
-- Recommendation: The City define and confirm the activity
areas from where mountain-view is desired;
the City investigate the feasibility of
either PRESERVING the view (if it exists) or CREATING the
view (if this might be achieved through redevelopment) ;
the City determine whether partial or
full view of the mountain can be maintained as achieved and
accordingly - determine the desired "view planes" and adopt
the view planes as a city policy; finally
the City either purchase "view easements"
over the properties in question, or
the City secure ri .hts to the desired
"view easements" through timely regulatory measures or law.
More extensive urban areas (like streets and parks) could be
opened up to the mountain through height and building regula-
tions that are specifically designed for downtown Aspen. A
modification (as amendment) of the two "downtown" zones : Zone
C-C and Zone C-1 could provide the desired result. (pp. 20 &. 23)
3 --
Height limits of the C-C and C-1 zones are 40' and 372'
respectively. These heights generally applied do not
allow for a view of the mountain - excepting the 25' maximum
height applicable in the AR-1 zone. (See pages 20 and 23 of
the Zoning Ordinance. )
-- Recommendation: A new "building envelope" should be
designed for the "typical Aspen block" responding to the
view requirements of the downtown area. The ideal "building
envelope" for a typical downtown block should provide for a
mid-block view of the mountain. (Thus , the north-south streets
would offer narrow but full vertical view and the mid-block
pedestrian spaces a wider but limited vertical view of Aspen
Mountain. (See illustrative sketch, ) The north side of each
block should be opened up to allow for a good view of the
mountain; the north side should be lowest with a gradual. transi-
tion towards the south side of the block, built up to maximum
height.
In summary, downtown "building envelopes" should be designed
around the' specific conditions that respect the width of the
streets and the distance from the mountain to provide for the
desirable view plane
t
- 4 -
The Zoning Ordinance includes incentives for the provision
of " up blic way space" and/or "public arcade space" created at
the ground level of the property. These incentives don' t
seem to incorporate though a policy to open up a view towards
the mountain. The "bonus" creates at least two problems :
a) It encourages the obstruction of the view of the
mountain on properties where arcades would run in a
north-south direction; and
b) It does increase the bulk of the buildings without
creating open .space where it would be best useable, (or
where it would be most appreciated) .
-- Recommendation: The "bonus" system should be redesigned
to respond to specific conditions of downtown Aspen. North-
south arcades should be avoided while east-west arcades should
be favored; a` 15' - 20' setback along the middle of the south
side of blocks should be encouraged (see sketch) ; and mid-block
crossings should be also either required or rewarded with a
- - -"bonus . "
THE URBAN (DOWNTOWN) ENVIRONMENT
In reading and evaluating provisions of the current Zoning
Ordinance, it is felt that this legal tool could be further
refined to foster a better downtown environment. In keeping
with earlier_ introduced principles refinements to the zoning
measures should be addressed to the BUILDING to PEOPLE relationship
w
5 -
and to the AUTOMOBILE-BUILDING-PEOPLE relationships . The
BUILDING-PEOPLE relationship could be improved through a
review of the GROUND FLOOR USES , the SETBACK requirements
and the form ("design") of pedestrian ways (sidewalks, board-
walks , arcades) that serve the buildings .
Ground-floor uses should be always "people oriented" and
'street" or "sidewalk"oriented. The construction of ground-
floor living units and impersonal blank walls should be dis-
couraged. (pp. 15, 18, 19, 21 & 22)
° Building set-backs should be encouraged along the south
sides of block or at street intersections in key pedestrian
activity areas . (pp. 19, 22 & 23)
0 In some areas where continuity of -design and a strong char-
acter is desired the "overlay zoning" (as well as the City' s
Public Works Department) could call for special ways of
reaching pedestrian areas : wooden "boardwalks ," sidewalk
- - - - -grade crossings (with bump-up slow-down- areas for automobiles-)
could be introduced.
In evaluating ways the Zoning Ordinance deals with the AUTOMOBILE
both innovative solutions and related problems must be recognized.
It is a great idea to park automobiles serving the C-C Zone in
the .surrounding C-1 Zone. This alternate solution to on-site .
- 6
parking could also concentrate a large number of automobiles
in areas where there is considerable pedestrian circulation.
(p. 37)
-- Recommendation: "Pedestrian Streets" should be identified,
and the concentration of parking lots on these streets should
be avoided. Along the R.O.W. of these streets only at alley-
ways and near mid-block should parking entrances be permitted.
Angle parking on private property backing into public R.O.W.
should not be permitted.
The Zoning Ordinance does not call for landscape treatment
of private parking lots . (p. 37)
-- Recommendation: a landscape and lighting plan should
be required with the submittal of each site plan featuring
parking layout (just as it is required for "open space") .
There does not seem to be a generally accepted way of jLghtin&
public and private spaces in the City. (Except as prescribed
in the sign regulations . . . )
-- Recommendation: A street lighting concept should be developed
and adopted; complementary principles for lighting . pri_vate
spaces and buildings should be adopted also.
Downtown Aspen is built by both the developers and .the City' s
Public Works Department. The best results of this continuing,
-- 7 -
combined effort can be assured through a coordination of public
and private improvements based on a concept designed for the
people who use downtown facilities : the PEDESTRIAN. Such. a
concept could be communicated to all through simple URBAN
DESIGN GUIDELINES and its implementation could be fostered
through a suitable DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS .
These GUIDELINES must concern themselves with all the elements
.that make up the urban environment, especially the elements
that the current regulations do not cover adequately. It is
hoped that similarly Historic Ordinance, guidelines related to
the architectural design and colorink of buildings , the surface
treatment (landscaping and paving) , the furnishing and, most
importantly, the lighting of public and private spaces will be
adopted, communicated to the developers and "enforced" through
a "design review" process .
In this effort the PUBLIC (the City) could primarily provide
the elements of continuity and the PRIVATE sector could res-
pond to these with complementary design themes of more indivi-
dual character.
In areas (both rural and urban) that are designated as routes
of SCENIC concern, appropriate SCENIC GUIDELINES should be
designated, adopted and enforced. These guidelines should
incorporate primarily those elements of the environment that
8 -
affect the auto passengers ' travel experience. In rural
"approach zones" or "backdrop" areas the landscape should
dominate, in the urban environment the man-made structures
should define the theme. The predominance of the natural
and/or the "built" environments , a clear expression of the
"land use," an appropriate punctuation of the travel experi-
ence (through a recognition and perhaps special treatment of
natural and/or man-made landmarks) should be encouraged by the
scenic guidelines and assured by a design review process .
16
ORDINANCE 19 BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW PROCEDURE
I . Building Permit Review Procedure . No building permit shall
issue from the effective date of this ordinance until the following
review procedure has been complied with and approval granted all
as provided herein :
A. All -plans for development shall be submitted to the
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission for its review and approval
as follows :
. 1 . Conceptual presentation : All applicants for a
building must first make to the Aspen Planning and Zoning
' Commission a conceptual or sketch plan presentation
describing the objectives of the proposed development .
Such presentation shall be in writing, with an accom-
panying oral presentation at the election of the
applicant . The applicant shall include a site plan ,
state the number of units to be developed, and
describe how the intended development complies with
the use recommendations of the 1973 Aspen General
Land Use Plan and satisfies all review criteria per-
taining to the land use category in which the develop-
ment will take place .
2. Preliminary design presentation : After approval
of. the concept is given , applicants shall make a
preliminary design presentation consisting of a
; I
final site plan , schematic design drawings, preliminary
i
elevations, and, at the election of the applicant �
or at the request of the Commission , a building model.
3. Final presentation : Upon approval of the pre-
liminary design, all development plans and drawings
ti
must be submitted for final approval prior to sub-
. i
mission to the building inspector ' s office of working
drawings for issuance of a building permit .
4. Any applicant may simultaneously make a Preliminary
design presentation and a Final presentation , provided,
however, that all applicants must make a conceptual
presentation prior to a Preliminary design presentation
and Final presentation , and independent thereof .
B. Prior to any presentation to the Planning and Zoning
Commission, all applicants must pay an estimated building permit
fee, which fee shall not be refundable , except as follows :
1. If the development is disapproved at or after
the conceptual presentation but prior to the prelimi-
nary design presentation , 757o of any estimated building
permit fee paid shall be refunded.
2 . If the development is disapproved at or subsequent
to the preliminary design presentation but prior to
the final presentation , 50% of any estimated building
permit fee paid shall be refunded.
3. If the development is disapproved at or subsequent
to the final presentation , 25% of any estimated building
permit fee shall be refunded.
C. Prior to the Preliminary design presentation the appli-
cant shall obtain written comment from the following agencies :
1. From the water, electric and gas utilities and
sewer districts concerning the availability of these
utilities and services;
2. From the Aspen fire department concerning the
feasibility of supplying adequate fire protection
services to the development;
3. From the city engineer concerning access , cir-
culation , the necessity of street improvements and
utility easements, drainage, and other engineering
considerations;
4. From the local school authorities describing the
probable impact on enrollment by the development .
(2)
i
Provided, however, that none of the above information is required
if the applicant is subject to subdivision regulation .
D. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall approve or
disapprove (pT approve subject to conditions) the intended
development after each presentation or plan submission and within
30 days of each such presentation or plan submission . Approval ,
conditional approval or disapproval shall be in accordance with
the use recommendations of the 1973 Aspen General Land Use Plan ,
consisting of a map and text which, for purposes of the review
procedures, are hereby made a part of this ordinance , and with
the review criteria hereby established or additions or
amendments thereto. Approval at any stage shall not preclude
disapproval at any later stage of the review procedure provided,
however, that approval of development plans and drawings will be
final.
E. . ' In the event of disapproval the reasons for disapproval
shall be given in writing to the applicant by. the building
inspector who must then deny any building permit application
made for such development . An applicant may not reapply without
demonstrating a substantial change in the development proposal
or in the uses permitted in the land use category in which the
development will occur.
F. On the recommendation of the Planning Department an
applicant may be exempted from the requirements of this Ordinance
if the planned improvement is of such a small scale as to be
without the intents and purposes of this Ordinance. Provided,
however, that all such exemptions granted shall.-.be reported to and
approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission at any public
meeting and made a part of the minutes thereof.
G. If in the opinion of the Planning and Zoning Commission
the requirements of three presentations pursuant to Paragraph I A
would cause unnecessary hardship to any applicant , on request of
the applicant the Commission may allow the Conceptual , Preliminary
design and Final presentations to be made simultaneously.
(3)
II . Pending Applications . Any application for a building per-
mit pending at the effective date of this ordinance shall be
exempt from the provisions of this ordinance providing that
a permit is ultimately issued on said application. Provided,
r^
further, that an application shall not be deemed to be pending
for the purposes of this ordinance if the applicant is subject
to subdivision regulation and such subdivision has not received
final approval and the subdivision plat has not been recorded
on the effective date of this ordinance .
III . Excepted Uses and Review Criteria . There are hereby desig-
nated excepted uses which land uses represent the land use recom-
mendations of the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan and which are uses of
right and cannot be denied under the provisions of this ordinance.
There are hereby further adopted review criteria and considerations
which, with the use recommendations of the 1973 Aspen General Land
Use Plan, 'shall be applied in the review procedures established by
this ordinance. The Planning and Zoning Commission is authorized
to recommend the adoption of additional excepted uses and review
criteria, or modifications to those herein contained, for application
in the review procedure, provided, however, that such additional
excepted uses and review criteria must , prior to their application_ ,
be approved by the City Council by ordinance.
A. Central Area : within that area designated on the 1973
Aspen general land use map as "Central Area" :
1. The following uses shall be uses of right (except
in those areas between Garmisch and Monarch Streets
and Hunter and Original Streets) : antique shop,
appliance store , restaurants, art supply store,
art gallery, bakery, bookstore , camera shop, candy,
tobacco or cigarette store, catalogue store, clothing
store, decorator shop, florist shop, furniture store ,
gift shop, hobby shop, jewelry shop, job printing
shop, key shop , pet shop, photography shop and
sporting goods store.
(4)
B. All lot and yard requirements and building
heights are subject to review during which the
following factors are to be considered : the preservation
views of Aspen and Shadow mountains; the reduction
of building bulk and lot coverage, with allowances for
greater height in exchange for reduced lot coverage;
- _ ---providing for plazas. _
3. Off street parking requirements are subject to
modification both as to placement and number of spaces
required, to better suit the terrain of the development
site, and to ensure adequate off street parking as
determined by the use of the property, the walking
distance to the downtown area and the availability
of public transportation, both existent and planned.
4. It is the purpose of the review procedure to
encourage the following :
(a) the preservation of those buildings and
sites recommended by the Aspen Historic Preser-
vation Committee for Historic Designation :
(b) that tourist related uses be located . in
the existent pedestrian mall or extensions
thereof;
(e) the placement of professional office
buildings in the fringe of the Central Area;
(d) the mixing of land uses resulting in the
integration of compatible uses that result in
constant activity in the Central-- Area;
(e) the preservation of views of Aspen and
Shadow mountains and Independence Pass ;
(f) the development of the Central Area as a
pedestrian dominant rather than auto oriented
area.
(5)
B. Recreations/Accommodations: within that area designated
on the 1973 Aspen general land use map as "Recreations/Accom-
modations"
1 . The following uses are uses of right : single
family detached residences with 6,000 square feet or
_,greater lot area; accessory uses ; and the remodelling
of existing lodges where such construction will not
result in an increase in guest capacity or in an
extension of an accessory use.
2 . All buildings not subject to subdivision regulation
are subject to review of the following considerations :
(a) access - width of the street , its grade,
intersection safety, visibility and lot entrance
must be such as to provide adequate access.
(b) fire protection - access and water pressure
must be sufficient so as to ensure adequate
fire protection .
(c) water pressure - the water pressure must be
sufficient to supply domestic use and to ensure
adequate fire protection.
(d) building bulk and height - the reduction of
building bulk and lot coverage with allowances
for greater height in exchange for reduced lot
coverage is encouraged.
3. Off street parking requirements are subject to
modification both as to placement and, number of spaces
required, to better suite the terrain of the develop-
ment site and to ensure adequate off street parking as
determined by the use of the property , the walking
distance to the downtown area, and the availability
of public transportation, both existent and planned.
4 , The allowable density of the development is sub-
ject to modification as determined by :
(a) the physical conditions of the development
site, i . e. , slope , access , drainage, natural
vegetation and all other terrain features ;
(b) the impact resulting from the development ,
i.e. , potential for stream and air pollution ,
the feasibiltiy of snow removal , the availability
of public transportation, and other public and
private services .
C. Recreation/Accommodations Transition : within that area
designated on the 1973 Aspen general land use map as "Recreation/
Accommodations Transition" :
1. The following uses are uses of right : single
- - - - - - family detached residences with 15, 000 square feet
_ or greater lot area; and accessory buildings.
2. All buildings not subject to subdivision regulation
are subject to review of the following considerations :
(a) access - the width of the street , its grade,
intersection safety, visibility and lot entrance
must be such as to provide adequate access.
(b) fire protection - access and water pressure
must be sufficient so as to ensure adequate fire
protection.
(c) water pressure - the water pressure must
be sufficient to supply domestic use and to
ensure adequate fire protection.
(d) building bulk and height - the reduction of
building bulk and lot coverage with allowances
for reduced lot coverage is encouraged.
(e) exterior color and building material must
be in harmony with and blend into the natural
mountain setting.
(7)
3_ Off street parking requirements are subject to
modification both as to placement and number of spaces
rSquired, to better suit the terrain of the develop-
went site and to ensure adequate off street parking
as determined by the use of the property, the walking
distance to the downtown area, and the availability
of public transportation , both existent and planned.
4. The allowable density of the development is subject
to modification as determined by :
(a) the physical conditions of the development
- site, i.e. , slope, access , drainage, natural
vegetation and all other terrain features.
-(b) the impact resulting from the development ,
potential for stream and air pollution,
--t-he. feasibility of snow removal, the availability
of public transportation and other public and
--private services .
5. Restaurants and professional offices are prohibited
in this area.
6. Buildings are not to exceed 2 ,500 square feet in
floor space nor 25 feet in height .
B. Because of the high visibility of this area,
access and utility construction must produce no
scars upon the landscape.
D. Multiple Family: within that area designated on the
1973 Aspen general land use map as "Multiple Family" :
1. The following uses shall be uses of right : single
family__residences with 6,000 square feet or greater lot
area; and accessory buildings .
2. All buildings not subject to subdivision regulation
are subject to review of the following considerations :
(8)
(a) access - width of the street, its grade ,
intersection safety, visibility and lot entrance
mast be such as to provide adequate access.
(b) fire protection - access and water pressure
must be sufficient so as to ensure adequate fire
protection.
- (c) water pressure - the water pressure must
be sufficient to supply domestic use and to
ensure adequate fire protection.
(d) building bulk and height - the reduction
of building bulk and lot coverage with allowances
for greater height in exchange for reduced lot �
coverage is encouraged.
3 . Off street parking requirements are subject to
modification both as to placement and number of spaces
required, to better suit the terrain of the develop-
ment site and to ensure adequate off street parking
as determined by the use of the property, the walking
distance to the downtown area, and the availability
of public transportation , both existent and planned.
i. The allowable density of the development is sub-
ject to modification as determined by :
(a) the physical conditions of the development
site, i.e. , slope, access, drainage, natural
vegetation and all other terrain features.
(b) the impact resulting from the development ,
i.e. , potential for stream and air pollution ,
the feasibility of snow removal, the availability
cE public transportation and other public and
private services.
E. Mixed Residential : within that area designated on
the 1973 Aspen general land use map as "mixed Residential" :
I. the following uses are uses of right : single
family detached residences with 6,000 square feet
(9)
or greater lot area; and accessory buildings.
2 . The remodelling of existing lodges is not subject
to review where such construction will not result in
an increase in guest capacity or in an extension of an
accessory use.
3 . All buildings not subject to subdivision regulation
are subject to review of the following considerations :
(a) access - the width of the street , its grade,
intersection safety, visibility and lot entrance
must be such as to provide adequate access.
(b) fire protection - access and water pressure
must be sufficient so as to ensure adequate fire
protection.
(c) water pressure - the water pressure must
be sufficient to supply domestic use and ensure
adequate fire protection .
(d) building bulk and height - the reduction of
building bulk and lot coverage with allowances
for greater height in exchange for reduced lot
coverage is encouraged.
4. Off street parking requirements are subject to
modification both as to placement and number of spaces
required, to better suit the terrain of the development
site and to ensure adequate off street parking as
determined by the use of the property, the walking
distance to the downtown area, and the availability of
public transportation , both existent and planned.
5. Restaurants and tea rooms are prohibited.
6. Office uses in those residences abutting the
south side of Main Street which have been recommended
by the Historic Preservation Committee for historic
designation is encouraged.
( 10)
7. The allowable density of the development is
subject to modificaton as determined by:
(a) the physical conditions of the development
site, i. e. , slope , access, drainage, natural
vegetation and all other terrain features,
(b) the impact resulting from the development ,
i.e. , potential for stream and air pollution , the
feasibility of snow removal , the availability of
public transportation , and other public and
private services.
F. Residential : within that area designated on the 1973
Aspen general land use map as "Residential" :
1. the following uses are uses of right : single
family detached residences when the lot area meets the
minimum lot requirements of the existing zone district ;
J
accessory buildings, fences and signs.
2. All buildings not subject to subdivision regulation
are subject to review of the following considerations :
(a) access - width of the street , its grade ,
intersection safety, visibility and lot entrance
must be such as to provide adequate access.
.(b) fire protection - access and water pressure
must be sufficient so as to insure adequate fire
protection.
(c) water pressure - the water pressure must
be sufficient to supply domestic use and to
insure adequate fire protection .-
(d) building bulk and height - the reduction
of building bulk and lot coverage with allowances
for greater height in exchange for reduced lot
coverage is encouraged.
( 11)
3. Off street parking requirements are subject to
modification both as to placement and number of spaces
required, to better suit the terrain of the develop-
rqsnt site and to insure adequate off street parking
as determined by the use of the property, the walking
distance to the downtown area, and the availability of
public transportation , both existent and planned.
4. Office uses in those residences abutting the north
side of Main Street which have been recommended by
the Historic Preservation Committee for historic
-designation is encouraged.
5. The allowable density of the development is subject
to the modification as determined by :
(a) the physical conditions of the development
n
site, i. e. , slope , access, drainage, natural
vegetation and all other terrain features.
(b) the impact resulting from the development , i . e. ,
potential for stream and air pollution , the feasi-
bility of snow removal, the availability of public
transportation , and other public and private
services.
C. Neighborhood Commercial/Limited Industrial : within that
area designated on the 1973 Aspen general land use map as
"Neighborhood Commercial/Limited Industrial" :
1. The following uses shall be uses of right : C-PND
Commercial Planned Neighborhood Development Districts
in the existing commercial zones and which are subject
to and satisfy the requirements of Chapter 24, Section
24 - 10. 1 PUD Planned Unit Development of the Aspen
Municipal Code; appliance sales and repair shops,
office machine sales and repair shops , furniture stores,
(12)
.• 1 .I
carpet and rug stores , paint and wall paper stores ,
furniture upholstery and repair shops , hardward stores ,
garden supply centers , printing shops, rental stores ,
lumber yards, shop craft industries, plumbing shops ,
electrical and heating supply shops, cabinet shops,
wholesale establishments , warehousing, offices
accessory to any of the above listed uses, and
residences for employees of the Neighborhood Com-
mercial/Limited Industrial District.
2. All buildings not subject to subdivision regulation
are subject to review of the following considerations :
(a) - access - width of the street , its grade,
intersection safety, visibility, lot entrance ,
and integration with the public streets and public
transportation facilities must be such as to pro-
vide adequate access.
(b) fire protection- access and water pressure
must be sufficient so as to insure adequate fire
protection . "
(c) water pressure - the water pressure must
be - sufficient to supply the commercial and
-�"--domestic"use- and- insure adequate fire protection .
(d) building bulk and height - the reduction of
- building bulk and lot coverage with allowances
for greater height in exchange for reduced lot
coverage is encouraged.
3. Off street parking requirements are subject to
modification *both as to placement and number of spaces
required, to better suit the terrain of the development
site and to insure adequate off street parking as
determined by the use of the property, the walking
distance to the downtown area, and the availability
of public transportation , both existent and planned.
(13)
4. The allowable denisty of the development is subject
to modification as determined by :
(a) the physical conditions of the development ,
slope, access , drainage, natural vegetation
and all other terrain features; t
4
(b) the impact resulting from the development , z
i. e. , potential for stream and air pollution ,
the feasibility of snow removal,, the availability
5
of public transportation, and other
public and
private services.
`r
H. Institutional : within those areas designated on the
t
1973 Aspen general land use map as "Institutional", all uses
t;
shown on an Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission approved
plan for institutional lands are uses of right.
i
I . Public : within those areas designated on the 1973
Aspen general land use map as "Public" , all uses shown on a `
Planning and Zoning Commission approved plan for public lands
are uses of right.
rt
THE I,SPEN Ii D USr PLAN
July 1973
It Ehall be the function and duty of the
planning] conunission to male and adopt a master
plan for the physical development of the munic-
ipality, ^including any areas outside of its bound-
aries , subject to the approval of the legislative
or governing body having jurisdiction thereof,
which in the con-nission' s judgment , bear relation
to the planning of such municipality. Such plan,
with the accompanying maps , plats , charts and
descriptive matter, shall show the commission' s
recommendations for the development of said
territory. . .
As the work of making the whole master plan
progresses , the commission may from time to time
adopt and publish a part or parts thereof, any
such part to cover one or more major sections or
divisions of the municipality or one or more of
the foregoing or other_ functional matters to be
included in the plan. The commission may amend,
extend, or add to the plan from time to time.
The plan shall be made with the general
purpose of guiding and accomplishing a co-
ordinated, adjusted , and harmonious development
of the municipality and its environs , which will,
in accordance with present and future needs , best
promote health, safety, morals , order, convenience,
prosperity, and general. welfare, as well as ef-
ficiency and economy in the process of development. . .
Excerpts , Chapter 139 "Towns & Cities" ,
Colorado -Revised Statues
INTRODUCTION
. .The Aspen Land Use Plan is a revision of the land use
concept included within the 1966 Aspen Area General Plan.
The updated Plan is an attempt to reflect current attitudes
and objectives of the community with regard to growth poten-
tial and land use. Recently adopted amendments to the 1966
Plan concerning transportation, trail systems and a Roaring
Fork Greenway proposal have been incorporated with revised
land use concepts into the updated Aspen Land Use Plan.
Housing for low income residents , adequate circulation
and preservation of natural resources and historic structures
are considerations that are addressed by the Plan. It
emphasizes what needs to be done to assure maximum public
fnr Avnon _
Page Two
The Plan is to serve as a guide to the Aspen Planning
Co;-ioi.ssion in reviewing applications for building permits
until a new zcn ing code and a now zoning district map are
adopted. The land use recommendations shown hereon will be
interrelated with urban design proposals and density limits
to complete the basis for the evolving form and character of
the community.
Certain planning considerations and policies have been
established upon which the Plan is based. It is not a
zoning map which details rigid guidelines (setbacks, building
heights , parking requirements -or the like) but constitutes
a general design for future land use and is a continuing
step in effectively responding to the challenge of building
a quality environment in the Upper Roaring Fork Valley.
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
The following considerations represent circumstances
that provide the framework for the Aspen Land Use Plan.
1. Aspen will continue to attract visitors and
new residents because of its position as a
quality ski resort and its natural setting.
2. Skiing will continue as the primary economic
base for the community.
3. Aspen will remain as the major tourist and
commercial center for the Upper Roaring Fork
Valley.
4. ' The community will continue in the attempt to
control growth and prevent surburban sprawl.
5. Emphasis shall be placed on preserving the
natural environment where new development
occurs .
THE ASPEN L%'D USE PI-MN'
Page Three
POLICIES
This Plan consists of a set of policy statements supported
by general rand use designations which are to be used in
guiding and controlling future development in Aspen until a
new zoning code and zoning district map can be adopted. The
Goals Task Force, a group of citizens from various organi-
zations , and the Aspen Planning Commission have formulated
the following policies as interpretive input for the map
shown hereon.
1. Preserve those buildings and sites recommended
by the Historic Preservation Committee for
historic designation.
2. Preserve and create scenic views of the surround-
ing mountains from public places within the
community.
3. Increase the number of housing units construct-
ed- for permanent employees .
4. Provide neighborhood shopping establishments to
serve the daily needs of surrounding population
and to complement but not compete with central
Aspen.
S. Hold the rate of growth to a level substantially
below that experienced since the late sixties
and ensure the growth that does occur is in
keeping with these same policies and the
Land Use Plan.
6. Strengthen the community' s economic base in
harmony with tourist activities and encourage
diversification of quality recreational and
cultural_ pursuits .
TIP] ASPS;.; LAND LSE PT_-±N
Page Four
7 . Implement a transportation system within the
community which places primary emphasis on
pedestrian and mass transit modes and de-emphasizes
the automobile.
8. Expand public facilities in a manner consistent
with these policy statements and a pay as the
community grows program.
9. Preserve the community' s wealth of natural re-
sources by preventing damage to air quality,
controlling runoff and maintaining a pleasant
aesthetic appearance by allowing only well
designed and considered development.
LAND USE CATEGORIES
The land use categories as shown on the Aspen Land Use.
Plan have the following as their intent and purpose.
Central Area - To allow the primary use of
land for tourist commercial activity that is
. essential to the community' s economic vitality
in an area that relates well to the proposed
public transportation system, the ski area and
existing tourist oriented businesses . Ordered
yet diversified land uses , such as resident re-
lated commercial, residential and professional
office uses , should be located on the fringe of the
central area. Urban design consideration is an
essential element of future development or re-
development of the central area and is necessary
to take advantage of the unusual opportunities
presented by its historic heritage and the relat-
ionship of the central area and Aspen mountain.
This design element includes as primary concerns
;'l L'S 7
Pnge Five
sites , structures and mountain views , implementation
of tree planting programs , as well as expansion of
the pedestrian oriented mall area.
Recreation/Accommodations - To allow for the re-
creation and accommodation needs of the visitor
to Aspen in an area that. is especially suited for
this because of its unity with, and identity to, the
proposed transportation system, the ski area and
the central area. Site plan review for significant
development is essential to permit consideration of
the impact that will result and the crucial issues
relating to adequacy of public facilities .
Recreation/Accommodations--Transition - To permit
recreation and accommodation development of limited
height, bulk and scale to occur - in an area that
relates well physically to the ski area. The con-
cept of construction should provide for a suitable
physical and aesthetic transition between the in-
tensive recreation/accommodation areas to the north
and the slopes of the mountain on the south. The
primary role of this area should be to provide for
a rural scale and design for hillside development
by regulating development intensity, building
height and bulk and requiring adequate open space.
Residential/Multiple Family - To allow for utili-
zation of the land so designated for more intensive
residential use by permanent residents because of its
location near employment centers, contemplated
neighborhood commercial establishments and ex- -
isting high density residential areas . These
areas should be a source of housing for low
. , Pa"c Sig:
income residents .
Residential-/iii-Ned - To allow for a mix of residen-
tial uses interspersed with limited amounts of
professional. office and visitor accommodation
1
uses in areas where these conditions presently
exist. Only existing lodges should be considered
for expansion in order to provide additional guest
rooms and new professional offices should be of the
type that do not generate frequent client visits .
Residential/Single Family - To allow for the
development of the land in this category for
single family permanent residential use because
of the generally remote proximity of these areas
to existing and contemplated commercial and trans-
portation facilities . The primary purpose is to
restrict these areas to their principal existing
use and thereby create a buffer between the high
intensity uses of the central area and the more
rural areas surrounding the community.
Neighborhood Commercial and Limited Industrial - To
allow the land designated as neighborhood commercial
to be used for a limited amount of commercial square
footage in keeping with the neighborhood concept.
Those areas where limited industrial use is indicated
shall provide for non-polluting light industrial
and service commercial needs of the community.
Institutional - To allow land owned by cultural
and educational organizations to develop according to
approved site plans in areas where these activities
now exist.
TIIE ASPEN L".i D USE PL;"'N
Page Seven
Public - To allow for utilization of these lands by
the public sector in areas where appropriate expansion
of community facilities , including those for medical
care, transportation, public administration and similar
facilities , are necessary.
Open Space - To reserve the lands necessary to preserve
and enhance the natural heritage and environment of
the community, an asset which is vitally important to
the continued success of Aspen as a resort people
wish to visit , and to protect and ensure future public
access to outstanding natural features such as the
river and the surrounding mountains . Open space
elements shown on the Land Use Plan such as trails ,
footbridges and the river greenway will be used as
guides in the future development of this portion of
the Plan and should not be construed as representing
existing systems or rights-of-way.
IMPLEMENTATION
The Aspen Land Use Plan constitutes a major revision
and update of the 1966 Aspen Area General Plan. Within a
one year period certain specific technical checks will be
made to substantiate or supplement the conclusions and
validity of this Plan with regard to natural resources
including air quality; transportation, urban economics
and public facilities . Specific methods of implementation
include the' use of new density standards , the neighborhood
commercial concept, an ongoing open space program, historic
heritage and view protection regulations , a transportation
system and the adoption of a new zoning code, zoning district
map and subdivision regulations .
J '
STATE OF COLORADO)
) ss CERTIFICATE
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
I, Lorraine Graves, City Clerk of Aspen, Colorado,
do hereby certify that the above and foregoing ordinance was
introduced, read by title , and passed on first reading at a
regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Aspen on
July 2 1973 , and published in the Aspen Today ,
a weekly newspaper of general circulation, published in the
City of Aspen, Colorado, in its issue of Jul 4 , 1973 ,
and was finally adopted and approved at a regular meeting of
the City Council on ii-IIV 1 ) `, 197 3 , and ordered
published as Ordinance No . 24 , Series of 197 3 of
said City, as provided by law.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the
seal of said City of Aspen, Colorado, this 24th
day of July 197 3.
L,- 7orraine Graves , city er
FLOW CHART
ORDINANCE NO.19
BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW
uildin F' Planning Commission is Owner or his agent 'Planning Coa issdon
� b }shears conceptual presentatibnj obtains written comment on r�reviews t'r.e preliminary
cc(non-�e:undah1e)
,� �. ,�,of the development plan his development plan from: � � lesi n of the development
ie �hcn scheduled for the �A �� � Utility Companies (gas,water, �' >"r plan.
Commission agenda E, > electric) , Aspen Fire Depart-
c City Clerk l,7 �� � ment, City Engineer and Local ���
l� -----...._--._—_.----- `�. �: School Board ' i --------------------
Within 30 days either �� , E� Within 30 e:ivs ether
! r Disapproves Approves ?"""' Disapproves Approves :.` 4
Termination Termination � ••
�p
1
P1 _nn:.ng Com-mi,-sion
Building Inspector reviews Building Inspector r
n revie:as the final ? the working drawings and issues building permit.
development plan ' s
a �.I processes the building per-
mit
j•'
j � application according 1 #
e to existing city codes and
_ __ _____ a maps E ,�
_I [°
', —yt in 30 days either —
t
Disapproves Approves ! Denies Approves
t.
. ....;iration . ., Termination . .,
O.r r�L✓.,; i;,.i G:J r c)OG74JJLO Ui1GViJpO000GO0000 pOf00mG0(9000GpG7L04000000 u6 O Q O G 600000 G O O 0 a 0006000 a O 0 O a 00006066 a 00000000600000000000000000 O O O G O O O O O L J 0600000
his agent m_-Y combine the preliminary design-and final plan steps at his own discretion.
s = r-nv of thosca noi.nts tha nwnar nr hic arrant rn, _("nl, rnliaf -Frnrn tha Annnn Rnnrci nF Ar1 ttn mant nY+ t},n nG
- 17
CITY OF ASPEN
aspen ,colorado, 81611 box v
PUBLIC CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
WAGNER PARK
1 . RESODDED PARK $ 2, 500 . 00
2 . OVER SEEDING 1, 100 . 00
3 . BACK STOP 400 . 00
4. AUTO SPRINKLER SYSTEM 7, 000 . 00
5 . DESIDUOUS AND EVERGREEN TREES 2, 000 . 00
6 . DRINKING FOUNTAIN 600 . 00
7 . FLOWERS 100 . 00
8. SIDEWALKS 5, 000 . 00
9 . MAINTENANCE 2, 000 . 00
10 . LABOR FOR ABOVE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE PAST
THREE (3) YEARS 10, 000 . 00
$30, 700 . 001 '
RUBEY PARK
1 . CONSTRUCTION, CRIBBING WITH TIRES $ 1, 600 . 00
2 . TOP SOIL AND SOD 2, 500 . 00
3 . WATER SYSTEM 3, 000 . 00
4. FOUNTAINS 400 . 00
5. FLOWERS 1, 000 . 00
6 . TREES 2, 000 . 00
7 . YEARLY MAINTENANCE 1, 500 . 00
8 . LABOR FOR ABOVE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE PAST
THREE (3) YEARS 9, 000 . 0.0
$21, 000 . 001
PUBLIC COSTS CONTINUED
PAGE TWO
GLORY HOLE PARK
1 . TREES $ 400 . 00
2 . DRAIN SYSTEM 500 . 00
3 . SIGNS 50 . 00
4. MAINTENANCE 2, 000 . 00
5 . LABOR FOR ABOVE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE PAST
THREE (3) YEARS 5, 000 . 00
$ 7, 950 . 001 '
MALLS
1 . CONSTRUCTION COST OF MALL $57, 679 . 00
2 . MAINTENANCE ( INCLUDES EQUIPMENT RENTAL, ETC . ) 4, 000 . 00
61, 679 . 00
RUBEY PARK PURCHASE PRICE $300, 000 INTEREST $100, 000
WHEELER OPERA HOUSE PURCHASE PRICE $70, 000 INTEREST $2, 450
WHEELER OPERA HOUSE EXTERIOR RESTORATION $62, 000
GRAND TOTAL $655, 779 . 00
PROJECTED COSTS
MALLS $700, 000
DRAINAGE 160, 000
STREET BEAUTIFICATION 60, 000
WHEELER OPERA HOUSE
RESTORATION 40, 000
URBAN DESIGN PLAN 40, 000
$1, 000, 000
1 . ESTIMATED COSTS 1971, 1972 AND 1973 .
20
CITY OF ASPEN
aspen ,colorado, 81611 box v
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Planning Office
DATE: January 7, 1974
The initial work on the View Preservation Plan was done at
the end of 1971 and during the early part of 1972. This
Plan is part of a conservation policy to maintain Aspen' s
existing quality, character and public amenities, which can
be judged by the degree to which the surrounding countryside
is allowed to be destroyed.
Aspen' s character, as it relates to the View Preservation
Plan, includes the following:
1. The presence of the surrounding natural
landscape, as viewed from public places
and the central area.
2. It' s small-town atmosphere, resulting
from its proximity to the natural land-
scape.
3. A combination of different views of the
surrounding countryside, which includes
panoramic views , slot views between buildings,
and views along the streets .
4. Scenic views from public places, which
makes Aspen different from other resorts
and towns.
Consideration of the View Preservation Plan at this time
is important because:
1. Aspen' s scenic views from the downtown area,
which provides the focal point of the
town' s character, are being lost as a
result of new construction.
2. The destruction of Aspen' s views will
result in the loss of an important
element of the town' s natural heritage.
3. Aspen' s scenic views have contributed
towards making it a cultural center and
strengthening its tourist economy.
Although opposition to the View Preservation Plan is to
be expected, initial delays in implementation should not
-2-
occur at the Planning Office/Planning Commission level since
legal and political issues may possibly cause future delays.
The full file, which will be made a part of the record at the
public hearing, is available in the Planning Office.
Let' s not forget, once a view is lost, it' s not likely to
reappear!
-3-
MARCH 21, 1974 22
ECONOMIC SUPPLEMENT TO VIEW PRESERVATION PLAN
MAINTAINING ASPEN' S EXISTING SCENIC VIEWS FROM PLACES
WHERE VISITORS CONCENTRATE IS AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF A
PLAN FOR A QUALITY RESORT . THE FOLLOWING EXCERPTS ON
PITKIN COUNTY TOURIST ECONOMY ARE FROM THE GROWTH MANAGE-
MENT ALTERNATIVES BEING PREPARED FOR PITKIN COUNTY BY THE
UNIVERSITY OF DENVER RESEARCH INSTITUTE .
PRELIMINARY EVALUATION PITKIN COUNTY- RESIDENTS -PERSONAL
INCOME - 1973 - INDICATES THAT $35 MILLION OF $51 MILLION
ESTIMATED PERSONAL INCOME CAME FROM WAGES, SALARIES, PRO-
FITS, RENTS, GENERATED BY TOURISM AND RECREATION BUSINESS .
A. ASPEN HAS BECOME A BOOM 1 . TOWN, BOOM TOWN
PROBLEMS ARE :
1 . DEGRADED QUALITY OF LIFE
2 . REDUCED PRODUCTIVITY
3. VIABILITY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
CHARACTERISTICS OF DECLINING QUALITY OF LIFE ARE CROWDING,
TRAFFIC CONJESTION, POLLUTION, LOSS OF SMALL TOWN CHARACTER
AND FRIENDLYNESS MEDIOCRE DEVELOPMENT, INCREASED COST OF
LIVING.
PRODUCTIVITY OF A RESORT DEPENDS SUBSTANTIALLY ON THE SAME
FACTORS WHICH DETERMINE QUALITY OF LIFE .
THE GREATEST THREAT TO PRODUCTIVITY APPEARS TO BE THAT
PRIVATE CAPITAL INVESTMANT DECISIONS WITHOUT OVERALL PLANNING
WILL OVERLOAD THE RECREATION CARRYING CAPACITY RESULTING IN A
NOTABLE DECLINE IN QUALITY .
1 . BOOM IS DEFINED ARBITARILY AS GROWTH AT AN ANNUAL RATE OF
EIGHT TO TEN PERCENT OR MORE . FROM OUR OBSERVATIONS, FIVE
TO SEVEN PERCENT IS THE MAXIMUM RATE THAT A SMALL COMMUNITY
CAN COMFORTABLY ABSORB .
GROWTH IN TRAFFIC IN ASPEN AREA
AVERAGE TRAFFIC ACTIVITY ON STATE HIGHWAY 82 AT WEST EDGE OF ASPEIK"
YEAR VEHICLES PER DAY
1960 1, 700
1962 2, 200
1964 2, 450
1966 4, 150
1968 5, 450
1970 9, 850
1972 10, 800
NOTE : IF 1960-1972 GROWTH RATES CONTINUE, THE VEHICLE COUNT
IN 1978 WILL INCREASE TO 27, 700 .
SOURCE : COLORADO? DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS .
NOTE : ESTIMATED 1980 TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ASSUMING NO SIGNIFICANT
TRANSIT SYSTEM AND DEVELOPMENT FOLLOWING THE 1966 MASTER
PLAN)
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC DURING PEAK MONTH_- 30, 000
ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 20, 000
SOURCE : REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN FOR THE CITY OF ASPEN AND
PITKIN COUNTY - ALAN M . VOORHEES & ASSOCIATES, INC .
NOTE: ROADWAY CAPACITIES VEHICLES
TYPE PER JAY
HIGH RURAL ARTERIAL
2 LANES PLUS SOME CHANNELIZATION 8, 000-12, 000
SOURCE: REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN FOR THE CITY OF ASPEN AND
PITKIN COUNTY - ALAN M. VOORHEES & ASSOCIATES, INC .
23
MARCH 21, 1974
HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE OF DOWTOWN ASPEN
1 . RESOLUTION DATED OCTOBER 13, 1973 RECOMMENDING CERTAIN
BLOCKS OF THE COMMERCIAL CORE BE CONSIDERED FOR
DESIGNATION AS H-HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICTS BY THE
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE.
2 . WHEELER OPERA HOUSE DESIGNATED HISTORIC
A. REGISTERED ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC
PLACES
3 . PITKIN COUNTY COURTHOUSE DESIGNATED HISTORIC
4. CITY OF ASPEN CITY HALL HAS BEEN RECOMMENDED FOR
HISTORIC DESIGNATION BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION
COMMITTEE .
24
MARCH 21, 1974
PUBLIC USE OF PLACES FOR WHICH VIEW PRESERVATION PROPOSED
RUBEY PARK
A. PROPOSED AS TRANSIT STATION FOR CITY OF ASPEN.
B . PRESENT USE IS BUS TERMINAL 1 .
RUBEY PARK TO BUTTERMILK ONE-WAY ONLY BASED ON 1974
FEBRUARY AVERAGE : 2 .
WEEK 4, 150 PASSENGERS
DAY 593 PASSENGERS
RUBEY PARK TO BUTTERMILK ONE-WAY ONLY BASED ON 1974
FEBRUARY PEAK: 2 •
WEEK 5, 125 PASSENGERS
DAY 732 PASSENGERS
RUBEY PARK TO SNOWMASS RESORT ONE-WAY BASED ON 1974
FEBRUARY AVERAGE : 2 •
WEEK 5, 087 PASSENGERS
DAY 727 PASSENGERS
RUBEY PARK TO SNOWMASS RESORT ONE-WAY BASED ON 1974
FEBRUARY PEAK: 2 •
WEEK 6, 322 PASSENGERS
DAY 903 PASSENGERS
RUBEY PARK MAJOR PICKUP POINT FOR ASPEN HIGHLANDS
(FIGURES NOT AVAILABLE .
C. PUBLIC USE OF OTHER VIEW PRESERVATION LOCATIONS TO BE LISTED
AS NECESSARY FOR LITIGATION.
1 . PRIMARILY TOURIST USE .
2 . INFORMATION FROM THE ASPEN SKIING CORPORATION
s %
CIL I
� .
01 v-N' E N
aspen ,co, ¢a , k:ft, box v
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Planning Office
DATE: January 7, 1974
The initial work on the View Preservation Plan was done at
the end of 1971 and during the early part of 1972. This
Plan is part of a conservation policy to maintain Aspen' s
existing quality, character and public amenities, which can
be judged by the degree to which the surrounding countryside
is allowed to be destroyed.
Aspen' s character, as it relates to the View Preservation
Plan, includes the following:
1. The presence of the surrounding natural
landscape, as viewed from public places
and the central area.
2. It' s small-town atmosphere, resulting
from its proximity to the natural land-
scape.
3. A combination of different views of the
1
surrounding countryside, which includes
panoramic views , slot views between buildings,
and views along the streets .
4. Scenic views from public places, which
makes Aspen different from other resorts
and towns.
Consideration of the View Preservation Plan at this time
is important because:
1. Aspen' s scenic views from uhe downtown area,
which provides the focal point of the
town' s character, are being lost as a
result of new construction.
2. The destruction of Aspen' s views will
result in the loss of an important
element of the town' s natural heritage.
3. Aspen' s scenic views have contributed
towards making it a cultural center and
strengthening its tourist economy.
Although opposition to the View Preservation Plan is to
be expected, initial delays in implementation ski.caa.ld not
-2-
s
w
occur at the Planning Office/Planning Commission level since
legal and political issues may possibly cause future delays.
The full file, which will be made a part of the record at the
public hearing, is available in the Planning Office.
Let' s not forget, once a view is lost, it' s not likely to
reappear!
-3-
25
TO: aspen City Council
FROM: Sandra I41_ atuller, City Attorney
DATE : March. 19, 1974
RE : Validity of Viewplane ordinance
Members of CouncL
The Flanning and Zoning Cczranission has requested that,
before you adopt further viewplar_es , I submit my appraisal of
their validity.
Introduction
The ewpla.,-ie concept was introducer' in the Adam Krivatsky
report of 1971 ("A Proposal for an Urban Design Supplement to
the Historic and Zoning Ordinances", dart, Krivatsky, Stubee ,
December, 1971) in which a series of re c=maenuations were
made for regulations "to assist us in preserving the community's
image, character, and environmental qualities for its residents
as well as for its visitors." In reference to preserving
views of the mountain, the report recommended :
1, Ude turn tome North-South streets into effective view
channels by (a) encouraging set backs (b) eliminating
signs that project from buildings and (c) discouraging
canopies or arcades over sidewalks;
2 . We protect the presence of the mountain in mid block
areas by introducing along the East-West streets
appropriate planned massing of buildings so as to
maintain a low profile toward the center of the
northern side of each downtown block;
3. And that we maintain the view of the mountain from
public plaices by establishment of viewplarles and
acquisition of vie -easero nts .
As to the third,; Krivatsky suggested that viewplanes be assured
primarily from more frequented pede-striari activity areas , more
specifically, from -nine public places (lots next to City Hall
and time Courthouse, etc. ) , tour private places (Hotel Jerome ,
City Market, etc.) and ten public areas (Wagner Park, Paepcke
Park etc_) .
The viewplane ordinance , Section 24-0(h) of the Supplementary
Regulations of the Zoning Code, is designed to respond to the
third recommendation.
The Viewplane Ordinance to Date
Last year the first �a If of t-hL viewplane ordinance was
enacted . The rationale of the ordinance was declared in the
.second 'G €3ereas" clause , which reads :
"WW. S , the preservation of mountain views from parks
and ether public places within the city will increase
the beauty cif the City of aspen and the enj oy-mnerlt of its
residents,. will strengt:heTI the city's environmental
heritage, enhance its attracti�reness to tourists , will
maintain pare peaty values . and generally promote the
prosperity and welfare of the C:tJ:C'.1t31inity. "
R cm:,)ers of Council
Page
March 19 , 1974
The ordinance establish N' on Ly one viewplane (Glory Hole
Park) but did set up the procedural r-z•:=.;rework so as to allow
desigr_ations of more viewplanes in the future . Worthy of note
is the fact that the ordinance did provide that citizens could
prosecute (as we Li as the city) for violations of the section .
This makes the public aspect of the ordinance clear.
- The -Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended the
implementation of a series of additional viewplanes (copy of
their more recent :resolution is attached) from Wagner Park,
Cooper Avenue (between Galena and Hunter) , the Wheeler Opera
House, the Courthouse, Rubey Park, and Main Street. In
addition, they have recommended that Section 24_9(h) be
further amended so as to allow for review of buildings to
be constructed within a plane as follows :
"When any viewplane hereinabove established projects
at such an angle so as to reduce the maximum allowable
building height to below that otherwise provided for
in this Code,, all development of areas so affected
shall proceed according to the provisions of Section
24_10.1, et. seq. , PUD Planned Unit Development, so
as to afford maximum flexibility in building design
with special consideration to building bulk and height,
open and pedestrian space , and similarly to permit
variations in lot area, lot width, yard and building
v- height requirements , including viewplane height limita-
tions . Provided, however, the Aspen Planning and
Zoning Commission may exempt any applicant from the
requirements of Section 24_10.1 when any proposed
development satisfies the building design require-
ments above enumerated."
Consequently, if a viewplane would seem to limit building
height below that presently allowed by other provisions of
the code, an owner may (1) apply for a variance_ (as always
allowed) -to the Board of Adjustment, if application of the
ordinance would create unnecessary hardship or practical
difficulties or (2) develop under PUD which would allow him
to _build into open space or set back areas, or even into the
viewplane itself if the P & 2 feels this will enhance the
design of the structure .
Also worthy of note is that buildings presently in excess
-of the height limitation imposed by the viewplane ordinance
Will enjoy nonconforming use status (which means in the event
of demolition or destruction they can be restored to the
existing height if restored within one year of destruction) .
.general Legal Considerations
There is no case law on the legality or illegality of
viewplanes . To my knowledge only two cities have imposed
them, San Francisco (down to the bay) and Denver (from
various city parks to the mountains) . In Crawford v
McLoughlin (1970) Denver anticipated a challenge toto their
viewplane ordinance, but the issue devolved into one of the
interpretation of the building code, and never got to the
issue -,of. the legality of the viewplane itself.
. Since there. is no .Colorado- caselaw discussing the issues
underlying the ctemplated ordinances , nor caselaw from other
jurisdictions directly on point (i.e . holding for or against
Members of Council
Page 3 - - - - - - -
March 19, 1974
the legality of viewplane ordinances) we can rely and adopt
doctrines accepted in other jurisdictions to support the
ordinances . Four priracipals or theories available are the
following
1. We can assert the proposition that ordinances based
predvminae-el-i or solely on aesthetic considerations
are a legit .nl ate exercise of the police power.
-- Several juri -lictions have accepted this doctrine .
Specifically, Live states adopted it. One most
recently doir; so is New York in Cromwell v
Ferrier, Ct.' of Appeals of New Yor7, 69. The
Court said':""
"One-important factor in the courts ' increas-
ingly permissive treatment of similar zoning
laws bas been the gradual acceptance of the
conclusion that a zoning law is net necessarily
invalid because its primary if not its exclusive
objective is the esthetic enhancement of the
particular area involved, so long as it related
only generally to the economic and cultural
setting of the regulating community. . . . . . . . . .
(H)owever, this does not mean that any esthetic
consideration suffices to justify prohibition.
=she exercise of the police power should not
extend to every artistic conformity or noncon-
formity. Rather, what is involved are those
esthetic considerations which bear substantially
on the economic, social, and cultural patterns
of a community. . . . . The eye is entitled to as
much recognition as the other senses . . . . . "
TKis .approa6ti, however, would be the least relied on
and only used in conjunction with those proposed in
the foilowip._; paragra s .
2 . This and the F011CT-7ing paragraphs concern theories
premised on z p j_i_ncipal that although few juris-
dictions will° ordinances based solely on
e aesthetic coT=j;tderat:icns , if the aesthetic considers_:'.
tions are --0r:1.y a part of the* basis for the ordinance,
and the ord ;.nce is also group-ded on an exercise of
a traditiona' .�y accepted police power,- then there is
no objectio_-1 i.o the reliance on aesthetic considera-
tions as a -iiLi_unal grounds for the ordinance. Conse_
quently, _'17111 assert, as one ground, that it is a
- -" legitimate ex ;:zs . of the police power to regulate lard
use to benef_w th.e tourist industry. This assertion has
been given Judicial approval in Desert Outdoor Advertising
v County of _m Bernadino, California 1967 , 63 Cal. Rpt.
543 , in hi.c-i�-{al' tornia Court said that land use
can be regulated tc provide a favorable environment for
industry. The Hart-Krivatsky_Stubee report can
be used as the expert witness evidentiary foundation for
_ this assertion.
3. It can also be argued that the establishment of viewplanes
1 is an exercise of the power - to. zone "to promote the health
. . . . .and general welfare ol" the cow ity" and "to conserve
Members of Council
page 4
March 19, 1974
the value of buildings" (see section 24_1 Aspen
Municipal Code) . A strong arg,Lment can be made
that preservation of the mountain views will enhance
public enjoyment, promote -,.:ell being, and preserve
property values , all. of which are legitimate objects
of the exercise of the police power. As to the last,
it has been held that an owner whose mountain view
has been obstructed by an improper zoning procedure
can recover damages for the loss . In Frankland v
City of Fake Oswego (Oregon 1971) 493 P 2nd. I
the Court said :
"The view a person may have from his home
ob�.iously can affect the market value of the
property. For these reasons we believe the
trial court must consider the testimony the
Plaintiffs gave as to the loss of view (of
Mount Hood) in determining the remedy on
remand."
Conversely, the safeguarding of this property interest
must be an object of city government. Generally,
arguments in support of the above propositions are
self evident, but again reliance can be had on the
Hart_Krivatsky_Stubee report.
4. Finally, with respect to the mountain views from the
city parks, an argument can be made that their
enactment is an extension of the recognized power to
establisLi parks, i.e . , designed to prevent the defeat
of park purposes .
In sum, I think that mountain viewplanes are supportable
to achieve the following acceptable objectives :
1. to preserve the mountain view to gene-rate civic pride;
2 . to preserve the mountain view for the enjoyment and
envirornnental enrichment of Aspen citizens;
3 . to preserve the mountain view to enhance the beauty
of the city;
4. to preserve the mountain view to enhance the economic
vitality and values of the surrounding areas ;
5. to preserve the. mountain view to 'protect •and enhance
Aspen' s attractiveness 'to tourists and visitors ; and
6. to preserve the mountain view to enhance the enjoyment
of the city parks . .
The city works with the benefit of the presumption that a zoning
ordinance is valid unless a person in opposition can prove, beyond
a reasonable doubt, that it is not, Baum v Denver, 147 Colo 104.
In addition, the due process and just compensation clauses do not
require that a landowner be permitted to make the best, maximum
or most profitable use of his property. Ibid. Finally, it i3
clear that the judiciary cannot interfer with a municipality' s
exercise of its zoning power unless it is clear that there was
an abuse of discretion. When there is competent evidence to
support an ordinance, the courts will not substitute their judgment
for that of the municipality', Menker v 'City of Colorado Springs ,
138 Co';.o 495 . With the benefit of these principals , I t i x,we
can defend the mountain view ordinances contemplated.
The "Taking" Issue
I anticipate that any attack against the ordinance will come
in the form of a. challenge that it constitutes a "taking", i.e . ,
Members of Council
Pale 5
March 19, 1974
a taking of property rights (cc de-,re-lop to a height allowed to
neighboring uses) by the cite trithout compensation. I would
dike to go into a lengthy discussion of the "taking" issue as
I expect several landowners to be present at the public hearing
and make arguments of this nature . My source for the following
is The Taking Issue published in 1973 by the U.S . Government
Printing 0 ice .
The authors conclude that during approximately the first
half of the Nineteenth Century, the definition of a taking was
based on a physical conception of taking. The great majority
of cases held that only actual physical appropriation or divesting
of title constituted a taking, a theory that has been character-
ized as "no taking without touching." Indirect, though conse-
quential, injuries to property, whether resulting from the
acquisition and use of other property or from police power
regulations , were excluded from the definition (pg. 106) .
In the closing years of the Nineteenth and opening years
of the Twentieth Century, the U.S . Supreme Court adopted the
position that police power regulations (of which zoning is a
type) did not constitute compensatle takings, but where the
government action permanently appropriated the owner's property,
compensation was required, even if the government's purpose was
to abate a nuisance. State courts, at the same time, also
construed a taking of property in very tangible terms , i.e. ,
a "taking" occurred only when there was an actual appropriation
of the government for its own use (pages 120, 121, 122) .
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes changed the
entire direction of the law in the case of Pennsylvania Coal
v Mahon (U.S . Sup. Ct. 1922) . In 1921 Pennsy - aniaHa^[ enac-ted
legislation to prohibit the mining of anthracite teal so as to
cause reduction of earth support of any buildings, structures ,
or transportation systems within municipalities. Pennsylvania
Coal Company argued that the legislation was not an exercise of
the police power, but an exercise of the power of eminent domain
(taking) but without compensation. Holmes agreed. He found that
all exercises of human activity are subject to regulation, but
when the regulation becomes too severe, it is an exercise of the
power of eminent domain and must be compensated for: .
"When it (regulation) reaches a certain magnitude, in most
if not all cases there must be an exercise of eminent
domain and compensation to sustain the act. So the
question depends upon the particular facts . . . The
general rule is, that while property may be regulated
to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far, it
will be recognized as a to ing.
Consequently, courts have turned to a balancing test, weighing;
the importance to the public of the objects of the regulation
against the loss to the individual landowners.
In The Taking Issue . the authors review the types of
regulations that Have Bien challenged as "takings" (mining
prohibitions ; flood plain ordinances ; wetland and estuary
protective regulations ; open space , agricultural and large
_lot zoning regulations ; historic* designations; and sign
regulations) .and have itemized the considerations of the courts
in these matters. (They also have reached a conclusion as to
the viability of the taking issue : 'bur strongest impression
from this survey is that the fear of the taking issue is
stronger than the taking clause itself. It is an American
Members of Coune:,Ll
Pave 6
March 19 , 1974
fable or myth that a man can use his land any way he pleases ,
regardless of his neighbors . The r,-iyth survives, indeed thrives ,
even though unsupported by the pattern of court decisions . Thus ,
attempts to resole land questions must deal net only with the
law, but with the myth as well") . In summary, the courts have
1. been likely to support a regulation if it will benefit
the community as a whole rather than a narrow segment
of the caur unity;
2 . generally struck down cases in which the regulation
will enrich a government in its proprietary capacity
at the expense of individual landowners - thus , if
the government seeks to use its regulatory powers to
reduce its cost of acquiring land (e .g. zoning an area
"park" or "greenway") courts will disapprove ;
3. required that there be a rational relationship between
the governmental objective and -the means used to
accomplish it; and
4. weighed the difference between the public gain and
private loss; attempts to determine how much devalua-
tion in Iand value the courts will tolerate have been
Inconclusive, but a loss of about 2/3 's of the value
is about as far as the courts will go, "Compensable
Regulations for Open Space," Journal of American
Institute of Planners, 89 (1963) .
In response to these criteria, we can see that (1) no viewplanes
originate from areas such as to benefit one man's business to
the detriment of mother's development rights ; (2) the view-
planes , although they do enhance our park system, do not attempt
to acquire land for public purposes ; (3) the viewplanes are the
only way to preserve mountain views and are designed to have
as little effect an the property effected compatible with human
enjoyment of the mountains .
As for the last requirement, we have attached a map of the
proposed (and existing) viewplanes, with the lateral figures
showing the maximum height allowable under the viewplane . Recall
also the (1) possibility of a variance in the event of hardship
.and (2) the' .use of .open space and set back areas in PUD to _
compensate for loss in density because of height. limitation.
Significance of Aspen as a Tourist Center
I think it of great significance that we are a tourist center,
and any enhancement of the enjoyment of the mountains has economic
as well as aesthetic consequences . This proposition has been
recognized by the courts as a legitimate ground for exercise of
the police power. The following statement from 16 Am. Jur . 2d
Page 609 , Constitutional Law, Section 311, states the proposition;
"Indeed, it seems that the police power may be exercised
for aesthetic purposes in a situation which it appears
that aesthetics are directly related to the general economy,
as where it is sought to promote the tourist industry by
preservation of natural scenic beauty."
The preservation and the promotion of the tourist industry 'is
the basic reason for the enactment of the Viewplane Ordinance . 7t
is hopeful that a 'her goals 'will be achieved and probably they will
but this city and this 'state are in direct competition with many
other beautiful places in this country for the tourist dollar. Tiie
preservation of natural beauty as an attraction to the tourist
Members of Courcil
Page 7
March 19 , 1974
industry has been the subject o-E much legislation and of much
judicial determination. A number of cases have supported the
validity of ordinances .having the same principles as the pur-
pose of the ordinance .
1. Brougher v Board of Appeals , Calif 1928 , 271 P. 487 .
Here petitioT hers o-,med certain r-e-a77property in a district
permitting hotels and apartment houses . They applied for a
permit to erect a ten story hotel, complying in all respects
with municipal ordinances . The application was presented
April 18 , 1927, on which date the Mayor approved an ordinance
designed to protect the view of San Francisco Bay. This
ordinance limited buildings within the applicable area to 40
feet in height. Thereupon, the application by petitioners was
denied. Holding that the enactment of the Bay View Ordinance
operated to revoke any rights in petitioners the court said,
at Page 491
"It follows, therefore, from what we have said, that the
petitioners were not entitled to have granted to them
the permit applied for by merely showing that they had
complied with all the laws and ordinances effective in
said municipality at the time of the filing of the
application with said board of public works when the
further fact appeared that before final action had been
taken on their application the ordinances under which
said application had been made had been amended by the
board of supervisors. "
2 . Opinion of the Justices of the Senate, Mass . 1955 ,
128 N.E. 2d 557. The question involved was a statutory
amendment "to promote the. general welfare of the inhabitants j
of the town of Nantucket hrough the preservation and protection
of historic buildings , places and districts of historic interest;
through the development of an approrpiate setting for these
buildings, places and districts ; and through the benefits
resulting to the economy of Nantucket in developing; and main-
taining its vacation-travel industry through the promotion of
these historic associations . " At page 562 , the court says :
"In the case of City' of New Bedford v New Bedford, Woods
Hole; Martha's Vineyard & Nantucket Steamship Aut ority,
`this court Look judicial notice oT the general character-
istics of the island of Nantucket and of its great interest
in the entertainment of summer visitors . We may also take
judicial notice that Nantucket is one of the very old towns
of the Commonwealth; that for perhaps a century it was a
famous seat of the whaling industry and accumulated wealth
and culture which made itself manifest in some fine examples
of early American architecture ; and that the sedate and
quaint appearance of the old island town has to a large
extent still remained unsp ailed and in all probability
constitutes a substantial. part of the appeal which has
enabled it to build tip its summer vacation business to
take the place of its former means of livelihood . In a
general way, much the same can be said of the village of
Siasconset, which is a part of the town of Nantucket.
There has been substantial recognition by the courts of
the public interest in the presa.rvation of historic build-
ings, places and distric ts . "
Tc;-.bers of Council
Page 8
March 19 , 1974;
"It is not difficult to imagine how the erection of a few
wholly incongruous structures might destroy one of the
principal assets of the town, and we assume that the
boundaries of the districts are so drawn- as to include
only areas of special value to the public because of
possession of those characteristics which it is the
purpose of the act to preserve ."
3. Opinion of the Justices to the Senate , Mass . 1955 ,
128 N.E. 2d 5635 in which virtuaily the same answers were given
to the validity of the statute in its application to the Beacon
Hill District in Boston. In this case, at page 566, the court
said:
"The announced purpose of the act is to preserve this
historic section for the educational, cultural, and
economic advantage of the public. If the General Court
believes that this object would be attained by the
restrictions which the act would place upon the intro-
duction into the district of inappropriate forms of
construction that would destroy its unique value and
associations, a court can hardly take the view that
such legislative determination is so arbitrary or
unreasonable that it cannot be comprehended within
the public welfare."
4. City of Santa Fe v Gamble_5kogmo, Inc . , 389 P2d 13 .
The purpose of the act involved was to preserve the character-
istics of a certain area in the City of Santa Fe. Height
limitations were involved as well as structural and archi-
tectural features being regulated . In the act it was stated
that the purpose was "to promote the economic, cultural and
general welfare of the people of the City of Santa Fe. "
Upholding the validity of these various limitations the court
states, at- Page 18
"New Mexico is particularly dependent upon its scenic
beauty to attract the host of visitors, the income from
whose visits is a vital factor in our economy. Santa Fe
is mown throughout the whole country for its historic
features and- culture:. Many of our laws have their origin
ire that early_ culture.- It must be obvious that the general
welfare of the community and of the State is enhanced-
thereby. - Bearing in mind all these factors , we hold that
regulation of the size of window panes in the construction
or alteration of buildings within the historic area of
Santa Fe, as a part of the 'Old Santa Fe Style ' of
architecture, is a valid exercise of the 'police power
granted to the city. "
5. City of New Orleans v Impastato, La. 1941, 3 So. 2d 559,
City of New -Or Bans v Pergament, La. 19 r+11, 5 So. 2d 129, City of
Yew Or ears v Levy,, La. 1953 , 4 So. 2d 798. The foregoing cases
all concern the validity of an ordinance of the City of New Orleans
rigidly limiting and controlling the type of construction which
might occur in the Vieux Carre section of the municipality. The
validity of the ordinance was sustained and we make only the following
quote from the latter of the three cases in which, at Page 802 , the
court states :
"Finally, defendant takes the position that Article XIV,
Section 22A of the •Lbuisiana Constitution'-and' the ordinances
enacted pursuant thereto are uric onstitutional since they are
mlcmbers of Council
Page 9
March 19 , 1974
enacted solely for esthetic purposes and are not within
the police power. perhaps esthetic considerations alone
would not warrant an imposition of the several restrictions
contained. in the Vieux Ca?-re Coi=fission Ordinance . But,
as pointed out in the Pergament case, this legislation is
in the interest of and beneficial to the inhabitants of
New Orleans generally, the preserving of the Vieux Carre
section ben not only for its sentimental value but also
for its comr~te rcial value , and hence it constitutes a valid
exercise of the police power. Incidentally, both the
constitutional amendment and the ordinance recite that
the preservation is for the public welfare."
6. Opinion of the Justices , New Hampshire 1961, 169 Atl. 2d
762. The purpose oF the legislation in question was to control the
location of billboards and signs along public highways . Upholding
this limitation the court says , at Page 864:
"Another consideration bearing on the constitutionality of
the bill rests on the fact that New Hampshire is peculiarly
dependent. upon its scenic beauty to attract the hosts of
tourists, the income from whose presence is a vital factor
in our economy. That the general welfare of the State is
enhanced when tourist business is good, is obvious . It
may thus be found that whatever tends to promote the
attractiveness of roadside scenery for visitors relates to
'the benefit and welfare of this state ' and may be held
subject to to police power. "
In sum, the. determination of importance of the viewplanes
to our tourist economy is a recognized legitimate exercise of
discretion on the ,part of the council and one, given our status
as an exclusive skiing area, which we can and should argue well.
The "Airport" Cases
ere is a series of cases evolving from another area of the
law which may be brought into play in any litigation on the view_
planes . Those case's are concerned with regulations promulgated
by municipalities or airport authorities reducing densities ,
.limiting uses ; or restricting, the'h:eight of structures within
the paths of airplanes approaching or taking off from airfields . �
The physical similarity between a viewp'lane and a "flight" or J
."obstruction" easement may result in these cases being given }
more weight than they merit. Consequently, I would like to
discuss the rationale behind them.
In several instances these regulations have been upheld:
Smith v County of Santa Barbara, 52 Cal Rpt (Calif. ) , Waring
v Peterson, So F orida 1962) and Candy Kitcz en, Inch
v Sarasota-Manatee ,.Airport Authority, 111 So. (Florida
because t imitations mere y reflect the airport
approach standards of the Civil Aeronautics Board. However,
in a majority of the cases courts have held that when such
regulations limit heights below that allowed under other
provisions of the zoning code, they constitute a "taking" of
property without compensation and are therefore void (or the
d
landowner must 'be compensated if the authority wishes to
continue enforcing the regulation) : Hageman v Wayne, 251 NE 2d
..501 (Ohio 1969) ,. Village of Willough'5y HI'lls v Conigan, 278
ATE 2d 658 (Ohio 1 , Ac -erman v Port ox Seattle , S P2d 664
(Wash. 1960) , Ballard v Maaman,-I�3L�SocT�£��Miss . 1966) ,
d
t
Members of Council
Page 10
March 19, 1974
Johnson v Airport Authority of 0r, 'im-i, 115 NV 2d 426 (Neb . 1962) ,
Indiana To 11 Board v .ianxovick, �Z -NNE 2d 237 (Indiana 1963) ,
Peacock v County of Sacramzento, 77 Cal Rpt 391 (Calif. 1969) ,
RoarcK v City o_ Caldwell, :j94 P2d 641 (Idaho 1964) .
In order to not over emphasize the significance of these
cases or their impact on our viewplane ordinance, let me
summarize the reasons given by the courts in support of their
holdings .
1. In Peacock the court said that while height restrictions
have—1—on--g— een recognized as valid, courts are reluctant
to extend this doctrine as a method to protect approaches
to airports. Inasmuch as airport authorities do have the
right of condemnation, courts prefer that they pay
compensation to adjacent landowners for the protective
zones.
2 . Also in Peacock the court said: "We believe there is a
distinction—etween the commonly accepted and traditional.
height restrictions in zoning regulations and the zoning
of airport approaches in that the latter contemplate
actual use of the airspace by aircraft, whereas in the
building cases there is no invasion or trespass in the
area above the restricted zone ."
3. In Hageman the court considered the airport height
lirr7itation not comparable to a zoning regulation but
similar to a legislative regulation for highway traffic .
The court went further and noted the inherent inequity
in requi-ring a single landowner to bear a cost that
should be absorbed by the airport:
"As generally conceived and approved zoning is an
exercise of police power for the benefit of an
enure community. Each tract must accept its
share of reasonable rest:Actions as they relate
to the mutual benefit of all. However, in this
case, all the regulations are solely for the
benefit of - (the airfield base). which is the only
• :. land not controlled by the proposed 'zoning ,regti_
lations. WPAFB is federally owned. The zoning `
board has no control over it. Mutuality is not
present. While adjoining- owners are sought to
be restricted, WPAFB has increased its use of
the air and its ground concentration of people
and buildings. "
In closing, the court compared the situation to one in
which the government would attempt to buy the firing
and target areas of a compound, and restrict the land
in between because it now was a hazardous area. Finally,
the court noted that zoning will not be allowed to impose
burdens on a landowner or community, when hazards are
created by strangers to the regulated area.
4. In Ackerman, the court again asserted the importance of
the—fac tTat airport authorities have the right to
condemnation:
"Clearly, an adequate approach way is as necessary
a dart of an airport as' is the ground on- which the,
membars of Council
nage it
March 19 , 1974
airstriv itself is constructed, if the private
airspace of a:ljacent landowners is not to be
invaded by airplanes using the airport . The
taking of an approachway is thus reasonably
necessary to the maintenance and operation of
an airstrip : the taking or damaging of land to
the extent reasonably necessary to the main-
tenance and operation of other property devoted
to a public use , is a taking. . . . ."
In sum, while I cannot easily estimate what impact these
cases might have on any decision of the validity of viewplanes ,
it is clear that they are distinguishable because of (1) the
existant right of condemnation of airport authorities (2) the
actual use by planes in flight of the airspace (3) the unfair-
ness of awarding a landowner money for land actually used . as
an airfield but denying compensation to adjoining landowners
who may be equally affected (4) benefits of such limitations
accrue only to the airport authority rather than the community
as a whole. None of these elements exist in our situation.
Summary and Conclusion
As stated, t e viewplane ordinance is designed to enhance
the city's beauty, the enjoyment of the mountains by residents
and tourists, the community 's environmental heritage, property
values, and Aspen's tourist economy. We are joined in such
attempts by San Francisco and Denver. We have attempted to
reduce the impact of the ordinance on individual landowners
by providing for variances and possible trade-offs in the
PUD process . As a home rule city we enjoy the right to enact
our own zoning regulations and such regulations can be defeated
only by a showing of invalidity beyond a reasonable doubt.
Courts have acknowledged the governmental objectives of promoting
tourist economies, aesthetic considerations, protecting property
values, and protection of individual citizens ' right to view the
mountain and more intensely enjoy their park system.
We have - seen that the viewplane ordinance does not offend ,
those iconsiderations of the courts as itemized by the authors of
The Taking Issue. Further, we have seen the courts give special
consideration to tourist oriented areas with 4.istorical �ignifi_
cance; San Francisco Bay, Nantucket, Beacon Hill District, Santa
Fe and the New Orleans ' Vieux Carre section have all enjoyed
the special patronage of the courts for reasons applicable to
our area.
A series of cases in possible opposition are the "airport"
cases , but, I think, will seem to have more significance than
warranted merely because of the physical similarity between a
viewplane and an airfield obstruction or flight easement. The
theory of these cases has not expanded to other areas but their
arguments are viable and I cannot anticipate how courts would
respond to an attempt to apply them to a municipal height regu-
lation directed to preserving mountain views for the general
benefit to the community.
Although the California court in Brougher seemed to assume
the San Francisco viewplane was .valid ; no court decision discusses
the point directly. Consequently, 1 have to be satisfied under
the general principles above discussed that the viewplanes will
be upheld. I feel that, unless a particular plane places an
Members of Council
Page 12
March 19 , 1974
enormous burden on a particular landowner, the contemporary
caselaw will support our ordinance.
Sandy Stuller
City Attorney
r
SMS :sd
Till:: .;�SIPE.Nr
R7 S
7D I�JG :S j,.�'E,7 T S 7
CCT T7
0 PL,P-A\ 1-110 U S T iE
PLANNED t7N17 T' 'RE,'S TiiE PER�'_'1_'z:SI7_'j'LE
DE--7 LOP',.,,:7E`_ I
.E �N IN Iti i
DT "-t,-S E S r,,T IS T E2
HEIGHT IS AFEFECTED BY IT�: V T HED D
SECTION 24_9(h) ; AND 7ji\'T I= '-',-,D 1-1,11C TIL,%T BEET: 0-
SUCH VIEW PLANES ORD INANi CEPS ARE ENACTED BY TEE CITY COUN-
CIL IT THOROUGHLY EXAN,11EINE THE LEGAL CONSE XES OF SUCH
ACTION AND POSSIBILITY OF CGMIPE=,7
SAT ION TI-:L%T MAY BE RE-
QUIRED, BY ESTABLISH:11ENT OF VIEW CORRIDORS WITHIN TIE: CITY
OF ASPEN.
WHEREAS., the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
undertakes continuing review of the City of Aspen Zoning
Code in an effort to provide for the orderly growth and
development of the city, and
WHEREAS, views of the surrounding mountains are an
essential quality of Aspen and contribute to the prosperity
and welfare of the city as a resort community, and
WHEREAS, development within the city is threatening
to eliminate desirable mountain views and therefore diminish
the natural heritage of the city, and
WHEREAS., Section 24-9 (h) of the Aspen Municipal Code
authorizes the establishment of view planes needed to pro-
tect mountain views from obstruction, and
WHEREAS', the. Aspen Planning and Z,oning.-Commis.sion. has*
considered all arguments both for and against the establish-
ment of Wagner Park, Cooper Avenue (between Galena and Hunter) ,
the Wheeler Opera House and the Courthouse concludes that
said view planes are in accordance with the intent of Section
24-9 (h) of the Aspen Municipal Code and are necessary to
protect those specific mountain views from obstruction, aTid
WHEREAS, the Commission is apprised that the concept of
view planes is one new both to the planning and legal profession
and there exists unanswered questions as to whether the establish-
ment of a view plane may, in some instances, be considered a
tio _'I C t!-,
S to C ty 4
direct the city attornoy, c'L or dopt on by o r d
investigate all the legal consc:IUenccs to the city, of
action,
N014, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL�,.D that the Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council
establish the following view planes :
1. Wagner Park- view plane originating in the Ncrth Central
part of Wagner Park above which plane no land use or building
shall project. The reference point bears N 58'03 '11" E 198.65
feet from the Northwesterly corner of Block 83 original Aspen
Townsite; elevation of the reference point is 7921.93 feet
above mean sea level. The view plane consists of a sector
component more particularly described as follows :
All that space which is within the projection of a sector
of 9*46 ' 18" and above a plane which passes through the
reference point described by two radial lines which bear
S 36*05 '49" E and S 45*52 '07" E respectively from the
reference point, at an inclination of 3*39'10" above the
horizontal.
• 2 C6urthouse view planes originating from*
the sidewalk .cn
the Northerly side of Main Street Easterly of Galena Street
above which planes no land use or building shall project.
View plane number one.
The reference point bears S 79*43 '29" E 69.00 feet from
the Southwesterly property corner of block 92 original
Aspen Townsite ; a plastic survey cap. Elevation of the
-reference point is 7914.52 feet above mean sea level.
The view plane consists of spatial components more par-
ticularly described as follows :
(2)
All Cl SsiZ',C_ C11
SeCto'i. cat 27°`''�S ' ',(;" !' ._4 (21 ra'. i.�l.
C 1 '
lines which bear S 16* 59 '4 u" E and S 10'58 '52" W
respectively from tr_e re forence point, and above a
plane which passes through the reference point at
an inclination of 4°25 ' above the horizontal.
View plane number two.
The reference point bears S 74°14' 26" E 131.46 feet
from the outhwesterly property corner of block 92 ,
Original Aspen ToTmsite . Elevation of the reference
point is 7915 .22 feet above mean sea level. The view
plane consists of spatial components more particularly
described as follows :
All that space which is within the projection of a
sector of 26°04'38" described by two (2) radial lines
which bear S 03° 36 ' 26" E and S 22° 28' 12" W respec-
tively from the reference point, and above a plane
which passes through the reference point at an inclina-
tion of 4'`48'20" above the horizontal.
3. Wheeler Opera House view plane originating from the
Wheeler Opera House westerly of Mill Street above which
plane no eland use or building shall project. The Easterly
end point of the base line for the view plane bears S 37°31112"
E 8.06 feet from the Southeasterly property corner of Block 81,
Original Aspen 'Townsite. The reference base line bears
N 74°30'11" W a distance of 140.45 feet from the 'Easterly end
point of the. base line for the view plane at an elevation of
7919.38 feet. above mean sea level. The view plane consists
of spatial components more particularly described as follows :
All that space which is within the projection of radial
lines from the Easterly and Westerly terminus of the base
line which bear S 30°21' 11" E and S 66°08 '59" W respec-
(3)
tivelv and which iis t
the reference pc-lnt at 1-,,-:c1.--f-.atio-n of 2' 50 ' 3v"
horizontal.
4. Cooper Avenue view
- Ane oric-Ina-ing on the '11orther y side
of Cooper Avenue Easterly Of Galena Street above t-,,,hich plane
no land use or building shall project. The reference point
bears N 75*4-1'52" E 147.78 feet from the Northwesterly pro-
perty corner of' Block 96 original Aspen Townsite, an alumimm,
cap located :Ln the sidewalk. Elevation of the reference point
is 7922 .91 feet above mean sea level. The view plane consists
of spatial components more particularly described as follows :
All that space which is within the projection of a
section of 48*00100" described by two (2) radial lines
which bear S 11*41'08" E and S 36*18'52" W respectively
from the reference point, and above a plane which passes
through the reference point at an inclination of 6'20'05"
above the horizontal.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED., that the Aspen Planning and Zoning
he City of
-
CULL ission recommends that the Municipal Code of t
Aspen., Colorado, be amended by adding a new section 24-9 (h) (5)
which such section shall read as follows :
When any view plane hereinabo*e established projects
v
at such an angle so as to reduce the maximum allow-
able building height to below that otherwise provided
for in this Code, all development of areas so affected
shall proceed according to the provisions of Section
24-1001. et. seq. , PUD Planned Unit Development, so
as to afford maximum flexibility in building design
with special consideration to building bulk and
height, open and pedestrian space, and similarly
to permit variations in lot area, lot width, yard
and building height requirements2 including view
(3)
P
:7
A.spe a P1 a,I-,,i T i-i �':
ap?licant frt:r,--. tkLe rec!1ir-ements of Section
when any proposed 6eveLopra,ent satisfies the bui.! c.ing
design requir-ei-nents above enumerated."
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Aspen City Council re1-i-,-,--St
of the city attorney a full summary of the legal principles
involved and a recomendation from the city attorney as to
validity of the establishment of the view plane, and consider
such summary and recommendation prior to adoption by ordinance
of the view planes hereinabove enumerated.
Dates this day of 1974.
C airman
Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission
27
5
1
VIEW CONTROL
DECEMBER, 1971 ADAM KRIVATSY SUBMITTED HIS REPORT
A PROPOSAL FOR AN URBAN DESIGN SUPPLEMENT
TO THE HISTORIC AND ZONING ORDINANCES
MINTUES
P & Z JANUARY 4, 1972 DISCUSSED THE KRIVATSY REPORT
P & Z MARCH 221 1973 REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING APRIL 17, 1973
MOTION TO THAT EFFECT PASSED
P & Z APRIL 17, 1973 PUBLIC HEARING RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL
ADOPTION OF THE SPECIFIC VIEW CORRIDOR FOR
GLORY HOLE PARK OF INDEPENDENCE PASS AND A
GENERAL AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING CODE TO ALLOW
FOR THE ESTABLISHING OF VIEW CORRIDORS .
MOTION PASSED
C. C. MAY 14, 1973 ORDINANCE 017 PUBLIC HEARING GLORY HOLE PARK
AND GENERAL PROVISION TO MAKE A PART OF CHAPTER
24 ALLOWING VIEW PLANES OR VIEW CORRIDORS TO
BE ESTABLISHED .
P & Z JUNE 19, 1973 PUBLIC HEARING ON RUBEY PARK AND HOTEL JEROME
(MAIN STREET)
MOTION PASSED ON MAIN STREET AND TABLED RUBEY
PARK.
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE VIEW PLANE ON MAIN ST .
RECOMMENDING TO COUNCIL WAS SUBMITTED .
P & Z JUNE 21, 1973 REVISED SLIDE OF RUBEY PARK OF INDEPENDENCE
PASS WAS PRESENTED, RESOLUTION TO APPROVE
CHANGE, AND RECOMMEND SAME TO THE CITY COUNCIL
AS AMENDED .
MOTION PASSED
C. C . JULY 23, 1973 PUBLIC HEARING HOTEL JEROME (MAIN STREET)
TABLED TO AUGUST 27, 1973
C. C. AUGUST 27, 1973 NOT IN MINUTES OF TABLED PUBLIC HEARING
P & Z NOVEMBER 13, 1973 STUDY SESSION
P & Z DECEMBER 4, 1973 PUBLIC HEARING SET FOR JANUARY 15, 1974
P & Z JANUARY 15, 1974 MOTION TO RECOMMEND VIEW PLANES FROM WAGNER
PARK, COOPER AVENUE, WHEELER OPERA HOUSE ,
AND THE COURTHOUSE TO CITY COUNCIL, THE CITY
ATTORNEY TO MAKE AN EXTENSIVE INVESTIGATION
TO RE-AFFIRM HER POSITION ON THE MATTER AND
MAKE THAT PRESENTATION TO THE COUNCIL AT
THE TIME THIS RESOLUTION IS PRESENTED TO THEM.
PUBLIC HEARING
g.
g
d
VIEW CONTROL CONTINUED
MINUTES
C.C. MARCH 25, 1974 VIEW PRESERVATION ORDINANCE PUBLIC HEARING
ACCEPTED ALL VIEWS EXCEPTING RUBEY PARK
WHICH IS TO BE READVERTISED FOR APRIL 16, 1974
BY PLANNING AND ZONING .
a
a
MARCH 19, 1974
RUBEY PARK HEARINGS AND MINUTES
PUBLIC HEARINGS JUNE 19, 1973 — PLANNING AND ZONING
JULY 23, 1973 — CITY COUNCIL
MARCH 19, 1974 — PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 16, 1974 — PLANNING AND ZONING
PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES
JUNE 19, 1973 PUBLIC HEARING (MAIN STREET ALSO)
TABLED RUBEY PARK TO REVISE DESCRIPTION
AND SLIDE
JUNE 21, 1973 REVISED SLIDE OF VIEW PLANE, ADOPTED
RESOLUTION, FORWARDED TO COUNCIL
JULY 10, 1973 COMMISSION AGREED TO BRING VIEW PLANE
PROPOSALS BACK TO THE PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION
AUGUST 9, 1973 JIM MORAN PRESENT FOR CURT CHASE
HERB PRESENTED TWO PROPOSALS ON VIEW
PLANES FROM RUBEY PARK — ASPEN MOUNTAIN
AND INDEPENDENCE PASS
INVESTIGATE THE POSSIBILITY OF MAKING
ARRANGEMENT FOR VIEW CONSIDERATION
CRITERIA AFTER ORDINANCE # 19 IS NO
LONGER IN EFFECT.
NO PLANNING AND ZONING MOTIONS
FEBRUARY 5, 1974 MOTION TO RECONSIDER RUBEY PARK AND
RESCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING FOR MARCH 19,
1974.
MARCH 19, 1974 PUBLIC HEARING RESCHEDULED TO APRIL 16
COUNCIL MINUTES 1974 DUE TO MISADVERTISEMENT .
JULY 23, 1973 TABLED PUBLIC HEARING TO AUGUST 27, 1973
AUGUST 27, 1973 NO MENTION OF RUBEY PARK VIEW PLANE MADE
(CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING NEVER HELD
ON RUBEY PARK INDEPENDENCE PASS VIEW
CORRIDOR ALTHOUGH TABLED JULY 23, 1973 . )
i
i